Maffitt v. . Hammerland

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Maffitt v. . Hammerland

60 S.E. 713, 147 N.C. 52, 1908 N.C. LEXIS 10

DecidedMarch 11, 1908

StatusPublished

This text of 60 S.E. 713 (Maffitt v. . Hammerland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Maffitt v. . Hammerland, 60 S.E. 713, 147 N.C. 52, 1908 N.C. LEXIS 10 (N.C. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

PeR OuexaM :

Tbe defendants contend tbat, upon tbe evidence, tbe plaintiff cannot recover under tbe Revised Statutes of the United States, Vol. VI, p. 909. Tbe evidence for plaintiff tended to prove tbat Hudson Bros., of Norfolk, are not shipping commissioners, whose fees for enlisting seamen are fixed by tbe statute, but general ship brokers. Tbe plaintiff’s evidence tends also to prove tbat tbe defendant Hammer-land, tbe captain of a Norwegian steamer, went to plaintiff and asked him to procure four sailors for bis ship before be left port. Maffitt told defendant be could not furnish tbe men, but they might be obtained in Norfolk, and, as a favor to defendant, be would wire Hudson Bros., a firm of ship brokers in Norfolk, and probably,get them there. Maffitt wired, and received a reply tbat be could get them for $20 a man and railroad fare. Plaintiff took tbe telegram to defendant, and tbe latter, after reading it, asked Maffitt to procure tbe men and advance tbe money necessary, stating tbat be would reimburse him. Plaintiff paid out for defendant *53 $120, railroad fare, telegrams, shipping fees, etc., charging defendant not a cent for his services, and paying the money simply as a favor to ITammerland. The defendants’ only defense is that the money paid was paid in violation of the Revised Statutes of the United States.

We do not think that the defendants’ contention is well founded.

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

PeR OuexaM :

Tbe defendants contend tbat, upon tbe evidence, tbe plaintiff cannot recover under tbe Revised Statutes of the United States, Vol. VI, p. 909. Tbe evidence for plaintiff tended to prove tbat Hudson Bros., of Norfolk, are not shipping commissioners, whose fees for enlisting seamen are fixed by tbe statute, but general ship brokers. Tbe plaintiff’s evidence tends also to prove tbat tbe defendant Hammer-land, tbe captain of a Norwegian steamer, went to plaintiff and asked him to procure four sailors for bis ship before be left port. Maffitt told defendant be could not furnish tbe men, but they might be obtained in Norfolk, and, as a favor to defendant, be would wire Hudson Bros., a firm of ship brokers in Norfolk, and probably,get them there. Maffitt wired, and received a reply tbat be could get them for $20 a man and railroad fare. Plaintiff took tbe telegram to defendant, and tbe latter, after reading it, asked Maffitt to procure tbe men and advance tbe money necessary, stating tbat be would reimburse him. Plaintiff paid out for defendant *53 $120, railroad fare, telegrams, shipping fees, etc., charging defendant not a cent for his services, and paying the money simply as a favor to ITammerland. The defendants’ only defense is that the money paid was paid in violation of the Revised Statutes of the United States.

We do not think that the defendants’ contention is well founded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 S.E. 713, 147 N.C. 52, 1908 N.C. LEXIS 10, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maffitt-v-hammerland-nc-1908.