McAdams v. Boyer

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

McAdams v. Boyer

37 F. 73, 1888 U.S. App. LEXIS 2718

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

DecidedOctober 15, 1888

StatusPublished

This text of 37 F. 73 (McAdams v. Boyer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McAdams v. Boyer, 37 F. 73, 1888 U.S. App. LEXIS 2718 (circtsdny 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Lacombe, J.

If the entries in the books of the firm of Boyer Bros, were before the court without explanation, they would seem to show that the “Eastern Dispatch Transportation Company”—concededly a myth—was in fact the firm itself. The respondents, however, have given a plausible explanation pf these entries. Such explanation is not inconsistent with the theory of the defense, and will harmonize with the respondents’ personal testimony. Between the Boyers and the libelant, wdro was called, as a witness, there is a direct conflict of testimony. The entries in the books will not suffice as a crucial test of the relative veracity of these opposing witnesses, for the reason above stated. Upon the case as it stands, therefore, I am' inclined to follow the district judge, who saw both witnesses, and believed the testimony of the respondents, rather than that of the libelant. The additional testimony taken in this court has not materially changed the case. The decree of the district court is affirmed, with costs.

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

Lacombe, J.

If the entries in the books of the firm of Boyer Bros, were before the court without explanation, they would seem to show that the “Eastern Dispatch Transportation Company”—concededly a myth—was in fact the firm itself. The respondents, however, have given a plausible explanation pf these entries. Such explanation is not inconsistent with the theory of the defense, and will harmonize with the respondents’ personal testimony. Between the Boyers and the libelant, wdro was called, as a witness, there is a direct conflict of testimony. The entries in the books will not suffice as a crucial test of the relative veracity of these opposing witnesses, for the reason above stated. Upon the case as it stands, therefore, I am' inclined to follow the district judge, who saw both witnesses, and believed the testimony of the respondents, rather than that of the libelant. The additional testimony taken in this court has not materially changed the case. The decree of the district court is affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 F. 73, 1888 U.S. App. LEXIS 2718, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcadams-v-boyer-circtsdny-1888.