Macfarlane v. Gilmore

Hawaii Supreme Court

Macfarlane v. Gilmore

1 Haw. 43

CourtHawaii Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 15, 1851

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1 Haw. 43 (Macfarlane v. Gilmore) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hawaii Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Macfarlane v. Gilmore, 1 Haw. 43 (haw 1851).

Pincite

Opinion

Chief Justice Lee,

after summing up the facts, charged the jury that the plaintiff could not sustain his action against Gilmore alone. It must be brought against Gilmore and Vida jointly, they being joint and not several contractors. Secondly, the contract is executory, and the plaintiff cannot recover the purchase money for the vessel, until he has first tendered to Gilmore and Vida a good and sufficient bill of sale. The general maritime law requires such a bill, as the proper muniment of the title of the vessel.

The jury returned their verdict in favor of the defendant.

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

Chief Justice Lee,

after summing up the facts, charged the jury that the plaintiff could not sustain his action against Gilmore alone. It must be brought against Gilmore and Vida jointly, they being joint and not several contractors. Secondly, the contract is executory, and the plaintiff cannot recover the purchase money for the vessel, until he has first tendered to Gilmore and Vida a good and sufficient bill of sale. The general maritime law requires such a bill, as the proper muniment of the title of the vessel.

The jury returned their verdict in favor of the defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Haw. 43, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/macfarlane-v-gilmore-haw-1851.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack