70 F.1d 640 - Bacon v. Poconoket — 70 F. 640

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently December 1910

2 federal appellate · 1 district ·

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1Parol Evidence — Contract for Construction op Vessel.

¶2Where a written contract for the construction of a vessel does not embody the entire agreement of the parties, and is absolutely silent on the subject of when the title should xiass to the purchasers, it is proper to receive oral evidence of a xiarol agreement in regal’d thereto, made before the execution of the written contract. 67 Eed. 262, affirmed.

¶3Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District, of Pennsylvania.

¶4This was a libel in rem by Nathaniel T. Bacon to recover the steamer Poconoket from the possession of the Interstate Steamboat Company. The cause was heretofore heard on a rule against libel-ant for security for damages and for increase of security for costs. 61 Fed. 106. Subsequently the libel was dismissed upon the merits (67 Fed. 262), and the libelant appeals.

¶5Theodore Bacon and N. Dubois Miller, for appellant.

¶6Edward F. Pugh and Henry Flanders, for appellee.

¶7Before SHIBAS, Circuit Justice, and ACHESON and PAPUAS, Circuit Judges.

¶8DALLAS, Circuit Judge.

¶9We find no error in this record. The opinion of the court below sufficiently supports its decree. The main question was as to the admissibility of evidence of an oral agreement that the title to a certain steamboat should vest in the steamboat company before its delivery to that company under the written contract for building it. If this written contract, which was claimed to be the exclusive evidence, had been a complete and final statement of the whole transaction, or had made provision respecting the title to the boat while in course of construction, the question would have been quite differently presented. It however appeared that it did not embody the entire agreement of the parties, and was not intended to do so; and it is absolutely silent on the subject of title. It was by reason of these facts that the learned judge received and considered the oral evidence; and in doing so, as well as in the conclusion which he based thereon, he was clearly right. To the cases cited by him there may be added, and still without making the list an exhaustive one: Morgan v. Griffith, L. R. 6 Exch. 70; Angell v. Duke, L. R. 10 Q. B. 174; Lindley v. Lacey, 17 C. B. (N. S.) 578; Juilliard v. Chaffee, 92 N. Y. 529; Van Brunt v. Day, 81 N. Y. 251; Willis v. Hulbert, 117 Mass. 151. The decree of the district court is affirmed.