McCarthy v. Eggers

1 F. 478, 1880 U.S. App. LEXIS 2383
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern New York·Decided February 18, 1880·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Blatchford, J.

The district court rendered a decree in favor of the libellant on the ground that he was entitled to a decree unless the respondent had proved the defence set up, which defence that court stated to be that the vessel, at the time of the repairs, was under charter to Dill & Radman, by virtue of an agreement between that firm and the respondent whereby Dill & Radman became owners pro hac vice, and, therefore, alone responsible for the repairs sued for. The district court came to the conclusion that, as matter of fact, the respondent had failed to establish such defence.

On the evidence below, in connection with the further evidence taken in this court on the part of the respondent, I am of the opinion that the agreement set up in the answer is proved, and the defence is established.

The libel must be dismissed, with costs to the respondent in both courts.

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

McCarthy v. Eggers, 1 F. 478, 1880 U.S. App. LEXIS 2383 (circtedny 1880).

1 F. 478 (McCarthy v. Eggers) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

The U. S. 219
21 F. Supp. 463 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1937)
Johnson, Joseph & G. M. Josselyn & Co. v. Goodwin
229 P. 708 (California Court of Appeal, 1924)
McCarthy v. Eggers
15 F. Cas. 1252 (E.D. New York, 1879)