Davis v. Adams

N.D. California

Davis v. Adams

93 F. 977, 1899 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. California

DecidedApril 29, 1899

DocketNo. 11,829

StatusPublished

This text of 93 F. 977 (Davis v. Adams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Davis v. Adams, 93 F. 977, 1899 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105 (N.D. Cal. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

DE HAVEN, District Judge.

The evidence in this case shows that the libelant, on or about the 11th day of May, 1895, signed shipping articles by which he agreed to go as a seaman on board the bark Retriever, on a voyage from San Francisco to Port Hadlock and return. In pursuance of this agreement, the libelant: proceeded on the bark to Port Hadlock, and there left the vessel. In my opinion, the evidence shows that he was justified.in leaving. The evidence also shows that the libelant has not been paid the wages earned by Mm. The libel will, however, have to be dismissed, as there is a fatal variance between the case proven and the cause of action alleged in the libel. The cause of action set forth in the libel is fox* a tort in the nature of false imprisonment, and not upon the contract established by the evidence. libel dismissed, the respondent to recover costs.

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

DE HAVEN, District Judge.

The evidence in this case shows that the libelant, on or about the 11th day of May, 1895, signed shipping articles by which he agreed to go as a seaman on board the bark Retriever, on a voyage from San Francisco to Port Hadlock and return. In pursuance of this agreement, the libelant: proceeded on the bark to Port Hadlock, and there left the vessel. In my opinion, the evidence shows that he was justified.in leaving. The evidence also shows that the libelant has not been paid the wages earned by Mm. The libel will, however, have to be dismissed, as there is a fatal variance between the case proven and the cause of action alleged in the libel. The cause of action set forth in the libel is fox* a tort in the nature of false imprisonment, and not upon the contract established by the evidence. libel dismissed, the respondent to recover costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 F. 977, 1899 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-adams-cand-1899.