Forshay v. Du Fais

S.D. New York

Forshay v. Du Fais

9 F. Cas. 464, 1855 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided January 26, 1855·No. Case No. 4,947·Published

Opinion

Judge INGERSOLL

said that even if such a usage were proved, it would not alter this case, as the testimony was that this cargo had been sold before the arrival of the vessel; and that after a vessel had arrived in a proper place, and was ready to discharge, and notice was given of such readiness, and no objection made by the consignee, it would not follow, from such a usage, that where a consignee did then delay the vessel, he was not bound to pay a demurrage. A decree was accordingly rendered that the li-belant recover demurrage for six days’ detention. with a reference to a commissioner to ascertain and compute the amount.

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

Judge INGERSOLL

said that even if such a usage were proved, it would not alter this case, as the testimony was that this cargo had been sold before the arrival of the vessel; and that after a vessel had arrived in a proper place, and was ready to discharge, and notice was given of such readiness, and no objection made by the consignee, it would not follow, from such a usage, that where a consignee did then delay the vessel, he was not bound to pay a demurrage. A decree was accordingly rendered that the li-belant recover demurrage for six days’ detention. with a reference to a commissioner to ascertain and compute the amount.

Forshay v. Du Fais, 9 F. Cas. 464, 1855 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25 (S.D.N.Y. 1855).

Pincite

9 F. Cas. 464 (Forshay v. Du Fais) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.