Randall v. Johnson

Mississippi Supreme Court

Randall v. Johnson

59 Miss. 317

CourtMississippi Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 15, 1881

StatusPublished

Cited by26 cases

This text of 59 Miss. 317 (Randall v. Johnson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Randall v. Johnson, 59 Miss. 317 (Mich. 1881).

Pincite

Opinion

Campbell, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The true interpretation of the contract sued on is, that the “ first return trip of the schooner ‘ Mary Bloom,’ ” — which it was assumed would certainly occur within a few months in regular course, — was fixed by the parties as the date from which the ninety days after which the money was to be paid were to be computed; and that as the schooner was lost at sea, and could never return as contemplated, the money promised became payable ninety days after the expiration of the period of time usualty required for a return trip of the schooner. Hicks v. Shouse, 17 B. Mon. 483; Ubsdell v. Cunningham, 22 Mo. 124; Williston v. Perkins, 51 Cal. 554; Nunez v. Dautel, 19 Wall. 560. It would be “a mockery of justice ” to hold that, because the schooner was lost at sea, and, therefore, had not made her first return trip, the appellee lost his debt.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Campbell, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The true interpretation of the contract sued on is, that the “ first return trip of the schooner ‘ Mary Bloom,’ ” — which it was assumed would certainly occur within a few months in regular course, — was fixed by the parties as the date from which the ninety days after which the money was to be paid were to be computed; and that as the schooner was lost at sea, and could never return as contemplated, the money promised became payable ninety days after the expiration of the period of time usualty required for a return trip of the schooner. Hicks v. Shouse, 17 B. Mon. 483; Ubsdell v. Cunningham, 22 Mo. 124; Williston v. Perkins, 51 Cal. 554; Nunez v. Dautel, 19 Wall. 560. It would be “a mockery of justice ” to hold that, because the schooner was lost at sea, and, therefore, had not made her first return trip, the appellee lost his debt.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 Miss. 317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/randall-v-johnson-miss-1881.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack