This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1862 Excerpt: ...cancel the first charter, and that the plaintiff's attention had been called to the fact that the second charter was in the name of Eason, ...Read MoreThis historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1862 Excerpt: ...cancel the first charter, and that the plaintiff's attention had been called to the fact that the second charter was in the name of Eason, but that the captain insisted on taking the first charter with him. Phinn, for the defendant, submitted: --1. (As to the first count.) That there was no warranty of an authority to contract on behalf of any third party, and that as the defendant might have sued on the first charter (a) he was contracted with as principal. And that, (a) Sc/nnalz v. Avery, 16 Q. B. Rep. 600. 18GI. even if it were otherwise, no damage had resulted from the want of authority, for that the onlv real damage was the v. nonpayment by Eason of his bill. And further, that the bill was accepted by plaintiff in satisfaction on the second charter, taken in substitution for the first. 2. (As to the second count.) On a fraudulent representation of authority. There was no evidence of fraud on the part of the defendant; and, even if there were fraud, no damage had resulted from it, nor had plaintiff shipped the cargo on the faith of the authority. 3. (As to the claim under the common counts.) That Eason was shipper and charterer, and so described, and that the plaintiff had notice of the second charter before the loading or signing of bills of lading. Honyman, for the plaintiff, answered: --1. That there was a clear warranty of authority; and that, if there was not, then that the defendant was liable under the common counts, the contract having been executed by the plaintiff." 2. That there was no plea to raise the question of satisfaction or substitution, and no evidence of it. 3. That there was no answer to the claim on the common counts, the evidence being that the cargo was actually loaded before the plaintiff heard of the re-charter. Williams, J....Read Less
Copyright in bibliographic data and cover images is held by Nielsen Book Services Limited, Baker & Taylor, Inc., or by their respective licensors, or by the publishers, or by their respective licensors. For personal use only. All rights reserved. All rights in images of books or other publications are reserved by the original copyright holders.