Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

FURNESS, WITHY COMPANY, LTD., A CORPORATION, vs. JOHN T. FAHEY, TRADING AS JOHN T. FAHEY COMPANY.

Decided June 26th, 1914.

STOCKBRIDGE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

The questions of law presented by this appeal are identical with those considered in the case of Furness, Withy Co. v. Blanchard Randall et al., ante p. 101. The only points of difference are, that three contracts, dated, respectively, September 21st, 23rd and October 4th, 1911, are here involved instead of one. The notice or "nomination" sent on December 2nd, designating the Amana as the vessel on which the shipments were to be carried, bore upon its face the approval of Fahey Co. The pleadings, evidence and rulings were simply a repetition of those in the case of Gill Fisher, and for the reasons there given the judgment appealed from will be reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded for a new trial, appellees to pay costs.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

FURNESS, WITHY CO. v. RANDALL
(Jun 26, 1914)