Rudolph v. Bryan

161 F. 233, 1908 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 378
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedFebruary 4, 1908
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 161 F. 233 (Rudolph v. Bryan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rudolph v. Bryan, 161 F. 233, 1908 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 378 (S.D.N.Y. 1908).

Opinion

ADAMS, District Judge.

This action was brought by William H. Rudolph and others associated with him in business, to recover from Charles S. Bryan amounts claimed to be due for certain supplies furnished to the steam yacht Czarina in July and August, 1906, as follows :

[234]*234

August 7th, 1906; furnished 30 tons of coal to said yacht Czarina at $5.50 per ton................................................... 163 00

August 7th, 1906; furnished 20 tons of coal to said yacht Czarina at $5.20 per ton................................................... 104 00

August 11, 1906, furnished 4.000 gallons of water to said steam-yacht Czarina, at 1/2(1 per gallon...................................... 20 00

August 27, 1006, furnished 50 tons egg coal to said yacht Czarina at $5.85 per ton................................................... 292 50 S631 50

The answer was a general denial but on the trial it was amended as follows:

“For a further and separate and distinct defense the respondent avers, on information and belief, that at the time the supplies in the libel and complaint were furnished the said yacht Czarina was under charter to Mr. Samuel Untermeyer and Dr. Seward Webb, and that said supplies were not ordered or received by respondent or used by him, nor by any one authorized to represent him.”

It appears that the libellants were engaged in business in Erie Basin, Brooklyn, in towing and furnishing supplies, 'of the nature indicated, to vessels, and that on or about the dates mentioned, they delivered to the yacht the items of the account set forth above. It also appears, that the respondent had no personal connection with the ordering of them but it was done through the master and Mr. Cox, of Cox & Stevens, yacht brokers in New York, who had been employed by the respondent to effect a sale of the yacht, which had been lying unemployed at Mariner’s Harbor, Staten Island, until she was towed, July 28th, to the Tietjen & Tang Dry Dock in Hoboken, New Jersey. She had been in Cox & Stevens’ hands for a year or more prior to this time for the purpose of sale but no success had been attained although the brokers had been urged by the respondent to make special efforts to bring it about. Mr. Cox in the spring of 1906, advised the respondent that it would be a good thing to have the yacht put into commission because it would facilitate a sale. The respondent agreed with this, provided he should be at no expense, and Mr. Cox engaged the master for the boat, who selected the crew.

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

Related

Steamship Overdale Co. v. Turner
206 F. 339 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1913)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
161 F. 233, 1908 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 378, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rudolph-v-bryan-nysd-1908.