Violett v. Stettinius

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

Violett v. Stettinius

28 F. Cas. 1218, 5 D.C. 559, 5 Cranch 559

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

DecidedMarch 15, 1839

StatusPublished

This text of 28 F. Cas. 1218 (Violett v. Stettinius) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Violett v. Stettinius, 28 F. Cas. 1218, 5 D.C. 559, 5 Cranch 559 (circtddc 1839).

Pincite

Opinion

Cranch, C. J.

I am of opinion that as the plaintiff claimed and offered to receive the butter in Washington, on the 22d of January, 1838, the defendant was entitled either to the whole freight, or freight pro rata. I think the whole, because he offered to deliver the butter either in Georgetown or Washington, at the option of the plaintiff, if he would pay the freight; but he refused to pay any freight at all. The delay was a proper subject of a claim for damages by the plaintiff against Saughenbaugh.

The plaintiff might have refused to receive the butter. He might have abandoned it, and brought his action against Saugh-enbaugh ; but having claimed it, and offered to receive it at Washington, he cannot lawfully resist the claim for freight.

Thruston, J., concurred..

Verdict for the defendant for the freight.

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

Cranch, C. J.

I am of opinion that as the plaintiff claimed and offered to receive the butter in Washington, on the 22d of January, 1838, the defendant was entitled either to the whole freight, or freight pro rata. I think the whole, because he offered to deliver the butter either in Georgetown or Washington, at the option of the plaintiff, if he would pay the freight; but he refused to pay any freight at all. The delay was a proper subject of a claim for damages by the plaintiff against Saughenbaugh.

The plaintiff might have refused to receive the butter. He might have abandoned it, and brought his action against Saugh-enbaugh ; but having claimed it, and offered to receive it at Washington, he cannot lawfully resist the claim for freight.

Thruston, J., concurred..

Verdict for the defendant for the freight.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 F. Cas. 1218, 5 D.C. 559, 5 Cranch 559, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/violett-v-stettinius-circtddc-1839.