Hawkins v. Davis

Second Circuit

Hawkins v. Davis

68 F. 380, 1895 U.S. App. LEXIS 2871

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMay 28, 1895

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 68 F. 380 (Hawkins v. Davis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hawkins v. Davis, 68 F. 380, 1895 U.S. App. LEXIS 2871 (2d Cir. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

PEE CURIAM.

The facts of this case are essentially as stated in the ouinion of the district judge. In Ms haste to punish the appellee, the libelant brought his suit before there had been any conversion of the goods by the earner. Robinson v. Austin, 2 Gray, 564; Clark v. Masters, 1 Bosw. 177, 185; One Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty-Five Vitrified Pipes, 14 Blatchf. 274, Fed. Cas. No. 10,536; Everett v. Coffin, 6 Wend. 603; Ang. Carr. § 400. Under the averments of the libel, it may be that at the time when the suit was actually commenced, although not when the libel was verified, there wasa cause of action for trivial damages, in favor of the libelant, for breach of contract by the carrier to deliver the goods within a reasonable time; hut no damages were proved, and the cause was tried in the court below, as it has been argued in this court, upon the theory of a, conversion. Had nominal damages been awarded, costs should have been, as they were, imposed upon the libelant. Courts of admiralty, like courts of equity, should visit costs upon suitors who resort to their jurisdiction merely to gratify a taste for vexatious litigation. Chapman v. Publishing Co., 128 Mass. 478; Allen v. Demarest, 41 N. J. Eq. 162, 2 Atl. 655; Moore v. Lyttle, 4 Johns. Ch. 183; Ben. Adm. (3d Ed.) § 550. The decree of the district court should be affirmed, with coats, and it is so ordered.

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

PEE CURIAM.

The facts of this case are essentially as stated in the ouinion of the district judge. In Ms haste to punish the appellee, the libelant brought his suit before there had been any conversion of the goods by the earner. Robinson v. Austin, 2 Gray, 564; Clark v. Masters, 1 Bosw. 177, 185; One Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty-Five Vitrified Pipes, 14 Blatchf. 274, Fed. Cas. No. 10,536; Everett v. Coffin, 6 Wend. 603; Ang. Carr. § 400. Under the averments of the libel, it may be that at the time when the suit was actually commenced, although not when the libel was verified, there wasa cause of action for trivial damages, in favor of the libelant, for breach of contract by the carrier to deliver the goods within a reasonable time; hut no damages were proved, and the cause was tried in the court below, as it has been argued in this court, upon the theory of a, conversion. Had nominal damages been awarded, costs should have been, as they were, imposed upon the libelant. Courts of admiralty, like courts of equity, should visit costs upon suitors who resort to their jurisdiction merely to gratify a taste for vexatious litigation. Chapman v. Publishing Co., 128 Mass. 478; Allen v. Demarest, 41 N. J. Eq. 162, 2 Atl. 655; Moore v. Lyttle, 4 Johns. Ch. 183; Ben. Adm. (3d Ed.) § 550. The decree of the district court should be affirmed, with coats, and it is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 F. 380, 1895 U.S. App. LEXIS 2871, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hawkins-v-davis-ca2-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack