Thurston v. Columbian Insurance Co.

New York Supreme Court

Thurston v. Columbian Insurance Co.

3 Cai. Cas. 89

DecidedMay 15, 1805

StatusPublished

This text of 3 Cai. Cas. 89 (Thurston v. Columbian Insurance Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Thurston v. Columbian Insurance Co., 3 Cai. Cas. 89 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1805).

Pincite

Opinion

Kent, C. J.

We do not see any thing like barratry in the cace, and should wish to hear the other side on th¡9 point.

Hoffman, contra. If Utley's going to Charleston was contrary to his duty, it was barratry. • The benefit of his owners could not have been intended, for he has never since returned, and has actually gone off with the proceeds of the vessel. The frequent [92]*92communication kept up with the owner, was only to lull into sectil . . i’lty, the more certainly to ultimately effect his barratrous design* ahd in this case, the first part of Utley's conduct is to be interpreted by the last; the running away with, and embezzling the vessel.

Per curiam, 'stopping Pendleton m reply. There is not sufficient evidfehce of barratry, and that is the only cause of loSs Stated. Judgment must therefore be entered for the defendants.

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

Kent, C. J.

We do not see any thing like barratry in the cace, and should wish to hear the other side on th¡9 point.

Hoffman, contra. If Utley's going to Charleston was contrary to his duty, it was barratry. • The benefit of his owners could not have been intended, for he has never since returned, and has actually gone off with the proceeds of the vessel. The frequent [92]*92communication kept up with the owner, was only to lull into sectil . . i’lty, the more certainly to ultimately effect his barratrous design* ahd in this case, the first part of Utley's conduct is to be interpreted by the last; the running away with, and embezzling the vessel.

Per curiam, 'stopping Pendleton m reply. There is not sufficient evidfehce of barratry, and that is the only cause of loSs Stated. Judgment must therefore be entered for the defendants.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Cai. Cas. 89, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thurston-v-columbian-insurance-co-nysupct-1805.