Torices v. Winged Racer

S.D. New York

Torices v. Winged Racer

24 F. Cas. 62, 39 Hunt Mer. Mag. 458

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedApril 15, 1858

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 24 F. Cas. 62 (Torices v. Winged Racer) 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

Torices v. Winged Racer, 24 F. Cas. 62, 39 Hunt Mer. Mag. 458 (S.D.N.Y. 1858).

Pincite

Opinion

HELD BY THE COURT

(BETTS, District Judge):

That by the maritime law a ship is not bound to the performance of a contract for her employment, unless there be mutually a liability charged on cargo on board for the satisfaction of those services. When the contract is for the prospective employment of a ship in transportation of cargo which is not placed on board, the remedy for a breach of such contract is in the common law courts. That the clause in the charter by which the owners engage “their vessel, rigging, etc., as by law,” subjects the security to the operation of the law maritime upon credits of that character. That the libelant therefore shows no lien upon the vessel of which the court can take cognizance, and the exception to the jurisdiction of the court must therefore be allowed. Libel dismissed.

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

HELD BY THE COURT

(BETTS, District Judge):

That by the maritime law a ship is not bound to the performance of a contract for her employment, unless there be mutually a liability charged on cargo on board for the satisfaction of those services. When the contract is for the prospective employment of a ship in transportation of cargo which is not placed on board, the remedy for a breach of such contract is in the common law courts. That the clause in the charter by which the owners engage “their vessel, rigging, etc., as by law,” subjects the security to the operation of the law maritime upon credits of that character. That the libelant therefore shows no lien upon the vessel of which the court can take cognizance, and the exception to the jurisdiction of the court must therefore be allowed. Libel dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 F. Cas. 62, 39 Hunt Mer. Mag. 458, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/torices-v-winged-racer-nysd-1858.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack