Beach v. The Native

S.D. New York

Beach v. The Native

2 F. Cas. 1101, 1857 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33

DecidedJuly 7, 1857

StatusPublished

This text of 2 F. Cas. 1101 (Beach v. The Native) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Beach v. The Native, 2 F. Cas. 1101, 1857 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33 (S.D.N.Y. 1857).

Pincite

Opinion

This was a libel for supplies. The schooner was owned in New Jersey, and was supplied in this port with a set of sails, by the written order of her master, with directions to charge them to the vessel and her owners.

HELD

BY THE COURT

That it is not an open question to speculate upon, in regard to the general authority of the maritime law, when the text of an express decision of the United States supreme court stands in the way. Pratt v. Reed, 19 How. [60 U. S.] 359. The court say an implied hypothecation of the vessel cannot arise under a credit to the master, [under circumstances] less stringent than are required to support a bottomry. That there is no footing for argument in this case, but that a bottomry hypothecation by the master, entered into upon the facts in proof, would have been void. Libel dismissed, with costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

This was a libel for supplies. The schooner was owned in New Jersey, and was supplied in this port with a set of sails, by the written order of her master, with directions to charge them to the vessel and her owners.

HELD

BY THE COURT

That it is not an open question to speculate upon, in regard to the general authority of the maritime law, when the text of an express decision of the United States supreme court stands in the way. Pratt v. Reed, 19 How. [60 U. S.] 359. The court say an implied hypothecation of the vessel cannot arise under a credit to the master, [under circumstances] less stringent than are required to support a bottomry. That there is no footing for argument in this case, but that a bottomry hypothecation by the master, entered into upon the facts in proof, would have been void. Libel dismissed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 F. Cas. 1101, 1857 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beach-v-the-native-nysd-1857.