Frank Waterhouse & Co. v. Dodge

162 F. 1, 88 C.C.A. 374, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 4413
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMay 4, 1908
DocketNo. 1,490
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 162 F. 1 (Frank Waterhouse & Co. v. Dodge) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Frank Waterhouse & Co. v. Dodge, 162 F. 1, 88 C.C.A. 374, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 4413 (9th Cir. 1908).

Opinion

ROSS, Circuit Judge.

The appellee Dodge filed in the court below a bill against the appellant and Frank Waterhouse individually, in effect charging the appellant with a breach of trust by reason of its al[2]*2leged failure to apply the security with which the trustee was charged to the payment of a note for $10,000 given by the North Alaska Steamship Company to the appellant' as trustee for the complainant, and praying, among other things, for a judgment for the amount due thereon. The court below held that there was no ground for recovery against Rranlc Waterhouse' individually, and Accordingly dismissed the bill as to him, with costs, but gave the complainant judgment for the money sought against the appellant, which is a corporation of the-state of Washington; the complainant being a citizen of the state of New York.

The case shows that in January, 1904, Trank Waterhouse & Co. Incorporated, was the owner'of the steamship Gáronríé, which was then out of commission in the waters of Puget Sound near Tacoma and in need of certain repairs. In the early part of the next month the North Alaska Steamship -Company, a corporation of the state of New York, through one Terguson, entered into negotiations with Trank Water-house & Co., Incorporated, for the purchase of the Garonne, which negotiations resulted in a contract by which Trank Waterhouse & Co., Incorporated, agreed to sell the vessel to the North Alaska Steamship Company for $85,000; $1,000 to be paid in cash, $14,000 to be paid Tebruary 15, 1904, and the balance in deferred payments extending over a period of two years, which deferred payments' were to be secured by a first mortgage on the vessel, an assignment of the marine insurance thereon, a bond to protect the seller against any indebtedness that might be contracted by the purchaser on' the credit of the vessel, and other securities satisfactory to the seller. At that time it was contemplated that the purchaser would accept title to the steamer on Teb-ruary 15th, when the $14,000 was to be paid, and would at that time furnish the securities called for by the contract; but on Tebruary 5, 1904, Terguson wrote from New York to Waterhouse at Seattle, among other things, as follows:

‘'Your various communications, including confirmation of tlie sale of the steamer Garonne, duly received, and wo have confirmed a compliance with the terms by telegraph. We have written our Mr. Hastings to make a thorough inspection of the steamer and wire us the results of the said inspection. I expect to be in Seattle myself in time to go over the ship and follow the lines of inspection; but it is just possible that I may not arrive' there in time,' and may be detained here a week or 10 days longer than I anticipate. In regard to the second payment on the Garonne, wo will follow this mode, which we trust will be satisfactory: On or before February loth we will deposit in'the Chase National Bank of New York $14,000, and the bank will wire the Washington National Bank of Seattle to pay your draft for this $14,000 on account of the purchase price of the steamer Garonne. We will also notify you at the same time that we have paid money in to your credit, and a receipt given by you to our Mr. Hastings will cover the ground. As soon as 1 arrive in Seattle we will finish up the matter as to details as per arrangement, so-as to make the transfer of the vessel on the next payment of $10,000.”

On the 10th of February, 1904, Waterhouse telegraphed Terguson at New York as follows:

“Received your letter 5th. A vital condition of sale Garonne to you was that purchase should be entirely completed by February 15th by exchange of steamer fot fifteen thousand cash, notes, mortgage bond and other satisfactory col-[3]*3Inlerul. Am willing accept fourteen thousand next Monday provided you agree execute notes, mortgage bond and deliver securities by March 1st; or forfeit the fifteen thousand if you fail; but I want you to advise by wire what character of collateral to deferred payments you will furnish in addition to mortgage and bond, so I may pass upon same Monday. 1 guarantee Garonne good insurable risk, and will puss United States inspection for commission, by expenditure on your part of about seventy-five hundred dollars. Am now-doing considerable work on her my own expense, preparatory to inspection. Other parties anxious to purchase her next .Monday at same price for practically cash.”

The next day, February 11, 1901, Ferguson wired Waterhouse at Seattle as follows:

“Understand Garonne transfer on payment twenty-five thousand my principal understands same and has gone South cannot reach Seattle until March 10th or H — tli. We propose pay fourteen thousand February loth, ten thousand March 15th make; then notes for balance; mortgage insurance policy good security bonds or cash I may not reach Seattle until March 5th will pay ship-keeper until transfer.”

February 15, 1901, C. B. Smith, president of the North Alaska Steamship Company, for whom Ferguson had been acting, paid the appellant, Frank Waterhouse & Co., Incorporated, $14,000, receiving from that company the following.:

“Received, Seattle, February 15, 1904, of C. B. Smith, fourteen thousand dollars, being payment due this day on contract for purchase of steamship Garonne. Another payment of .110,000 and the execution of notes, mortgage, bond, and collateral for deferred payments are to be made and completed on or before March 15, 1904, as per terms of contract; and if default is made by said Smith in making said further payment or in execution of said securities on or before March 15th next, then his right to purchase said vessel shall cease, and all moneys paid by him toward such purchase shall be forfeited to and be and remain the moneys of this company.
“Frank Waterhouse & Co., Tna,
“By Frank Waterhouse, I’resident.”

On March 15, 1904, the purchaser remitted to the appellant from New York $7,000, and on March 18th $3,000, making the $10,000 due March 15th, but did not furnish the bond and other securities called for by the contract, or take title to the steamship. The record shows that from that time forward the seller was constantly insisting that the purchaser should complete the contract and take the title, and that the purchaser was continually promising to do so, and that subsequent to March 15th the appellant permitted the purchaser to take possession of the vessel for the purpose of making certain repairs which it desired to make in preparation for the approaching Alaska season, in which trade the steamship was to be engaged. This arrangement, however, was upon the distinct agreement that no indebtedness should be incurred against the vessel, and that all of the repairs, betterments, and supplies should be paid for in cash by the purchaser and the steamship kept free from all incumbrance. Ferguson and one Hastings were the representatives at the time of the North Alaska Steamship Company, and it soon appeared that they were making the repairs and procuring supplies on the credit of the vessel. The appellant thereupon insisted that such indebtedness should be promptly paid by the purchaser, and threatened to cancel the contract and forfeit the payments theretofore [4]*4made-by the purchasing company unless those debts were paid and the securities called'for by the contract furnished.

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

Related

State v. Barbato
215 A.2d 75 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1965)
Town of West Orange v. Jordan Corp.
146 A.2d 134 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1958)
Associated Metals, Etc., Corp. v. DIXON, CHEMICAL & RESEARCH, INC.
145 A.2d 49 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1958)
Wilomay Holding Co. v. McCoy
142 A.2d 667 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1958)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
162 F. 1, 88 C.C.A. 374, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 4413, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frank-waterhouse-co-v-dodge-ca9-1908.