Peck v. Laughlin

E.D. Pennsylvania

Peck v. Laughlin

19 F. Cas. 77, 8 W.N.C. 188, 14 Phila. 531, 21 Alb. Law J. 94, 1879 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

DecidedDecember 29, 1879

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 19 F. Cas. 77 (Peck v. Laughlin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Peck v. Laughlin, 19 F. Cas. 77, 8 W.N.C. 188, 14 Phila. 531, 21 Alb. Law J. 94, 1879 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198 (E.D. Pa. 1879).

Pincite

Opinion

BUTLER, District Judge.

But if the facts were as stated by the libellants no recovery, in my judgment, could be had here. The complaint is substantially for the breach of. a contract [by the master of a vessel] to purchase salt. Such a contract is not maritime, and this court has not, therefore, jurisdiction over any complaint growing out of it. That it is joined to a contract of affreightment, and found in a charter party, can make no difference, I think. Incidental matters connected witji a maritime contract, over which a court of admiralty would otherwise have no cognizance, may thus be drawn within its jurisdiction. But this contract to purchase salt was not an incident of the contract to cany it. Its performance was preliminary to the latter taking effect The plaintiff had no cargo to which the contract to carry could be applied,, and both parties knew this. It was to take effect when the defendant made the purchase stipulated for, and could not before. The books show no instance of the exercise of admiralty jurisdiction, I believe, over failure to keep such a contract; but, as I think, several cases to the contrary. Alberti v. The Virginia [Case No. 141]; Waterbury v. Myrick [Id. 17,253]; The Tribune [Id. 14,171]: L’Arina v. Manwaring [Id. 8,089]; Willard v. Dorr [Id. 17,680]; Torices v. The Winged Racer,—Oct., 1858,—[Id. 14,102],

The libel must, therefore, be dismissed. Decree accordingly.

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

BUTLER, District Judge.

But if the facts were as stated by the libellants no recovery, in my judgment, could be had here. The complaint is substantially for the breach of. a contract [by the master of a vessel] to purchase salt. Such a contract is not maritime, and this court has not, therefore, jurisdiction over any complaint growing out of it. That it is joined to a contract of affreightment, and found in a charter party, can make no difference, I think. Incidental matters connected witji a maritime contract, over which a court of admiralty would otherwise have no cognizance, may thus be drawn within its jurisdiction. But this contract to purchase salt was not an incident of the contract to cany it. Its performance was preliminary to the latter taking effect The plaintiff had no cargo to which the contract to carry could be applied,, and both parties knew this. It was to take effect when the defendant made the purchase stipulated for, and could not before. The books show no instance of the exercise of admiralty jurisdiction, I believe, over failure to keep such a contract; but, as I think, several cases to the contrary. Alberti v. The Virginia [Case No. 141]; Waterbury v. Myrick [Id. 17,253]; The Tribune [Id. 14,171]: L’Arina v. Manwaring [Id. 8,089]; Willard v. Dorr [Id. 17,680]; Torices v. The Winged Racer,—Oct., 1858,—[Id. 14,102],

The libel must, therefore, be dismissed. Decree accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 F. Cas. 77, 8 W.N.C. 188, 14 Phila. 531, 21 Alb. Law J. 94, 1879 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peck-v-laughlin-paed-1879.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack