Horan v. Hughes

S.D. New York

Horan v. Hughes

129 F. 248, 1903 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedMay 15, 1903

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 129 F. 248 (Horan v. Hughes) 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

Horan v. Hughes, 129 F. 248, 1903 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14 (S.D.N.Y. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

HOLT, District Judge.

Hughes made the contract with Horan. He is therefore presumably responsible on it. His defense is, in substance, that he was acting as agent for a principal. To maintain such a defense, he must prove that he disclosed the name of his principal. It is not sufficient that he was acting as agent, or that the other party to the contract supposed he was acting as agent, if he did not know who the principal was. De Remer v. Brown, 165 N. Y. 419, 59 N. E. 129; Tew v. Wolfsohn (Court of Appeals) 66 N. E. 934. The evidence in this case, in my opinion, preponderates that Hughes either chartered Horan’s boat himself, or that, if Horan supposed Hughes was acting as agent, he did not know who Hughes’ principal was.

There should be a decree for the libelant for the amount demanded in the libel, with costs.

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

HOLT, District Judge.

Hughes made the contract with Horan. He is therefore presumably responsible on it. His defense is, in substance, that he was acting as agent for a principal. To maintain such a defense, he must prove that he disclosed the name of his principal. It is not sufficient that he was acting as agent, or that the other party to the contract supposed he was acting as agent, if he did not know who the principal was. De Remer v. Brown, 165 N. Y. 419, 59 N. E. 129; Tew v. Wolfsohn (Court of Appeals) 66 N. E. 934. The evidence in this case, in my opinion, preponderates that Hughes either chartered Horan’s boat himself, or that, if Horan supposed Hughes was acting as agent, he did not know who Hughes’ principal was.

There should be a decree for the libelant for the amount demanded in the libel, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 F. 248, 1903 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/horan-v-hughes-nysd-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack