The Battler v. The Savannah

E.D. Pennsylvania

The Battler v. The Savannah

28 F. 927, 1886 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150

DecidedNovember 9, 1886

StatusPublished

This text of 28 F. 927 (The Battler v. The Savannah) 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

The Battler v. The Savannah, 28 F. 927, 1886 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150 (E.D. Pa. 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

Butleb, J.

The libels are founded on contract; the libelants alleging an engagement of their services, and a refusal to employ them when tendered. A careful examination of tho testimony has not satisfied me that such a contract existed. The respondent contracted with Oapt. Dahl, of the Cynthia, to take her (the respondent) to Philadelphia, for a consideration agreed upon, Capt. Dahl to find all the necessary means at his own expense. There is nothing "whatever in the testimony to justify a belief that the respondent [928]*928entered into any contract with the libelants, directly or otherwise. The testimony of the master of the Savannah, on cross-examination, that Capt. Dahl was his “agent,” might mislead, if considered without reference to his testimony in chief. Taken altogether, the state-men ts of the witness show quite plainly that Capt. Dahl was not authorized to make contracts in the respondent’s name, or on her behalf; nor does it anywhere appear that he undertook to do so.

This view of the facts renders other questions raised unimportant.

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

Butleb, J.

The libels are founded on contract; the libelants alleging an engagement of their services, and a refusal to employ them when tendered. A careful examination of tho testimony has not satisfied me that such a contract existed. The respondent contracted with Oapt. Dahl, of the Cynthia, to take her (the respondent) to Philadelphia, for a consideration agreed upon, Capt. Dahl to find all the necessary means at his own expense. There is nothing "whatever in the testimony to justify a belief that the respondent [928]*928entered into any contract with the libelants, directly or otherwise. The testimony of the master of the Savannah, on cross-examination, that Capt. Dahl was his “agent,” might mislead, if considered without reference to his testimony in chief. Taken altogether, the state-men ts of the witness show quite plainly that Capt. Dahl was not authorized to make contracts in the respondent’s name, or on her behalf; nor does it anywhere appear that he undertook to do so.

This view of the facts renders other questions raised unimportant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 F. 927, 1886 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-battler-v-the-savannah-paed-1886.