Brig Odorilla v. Baizley

Citations

• 128 Pa. 283
• 22 W.N.C. 300
• 18 A. 511
• 1889 Pa. LEXIS 790

Syllabus

<p>1. While the declarations of an alleged agent are not evidence of the existence of the agency, continuous acts performed by him in and about the business of his alleged principals and their recognition of these acts, are evidence from which an agency may be fairly inferred by a jury.</p> <p>2. A vessel in course of construction, and not yet registered and enrolled under the laws of the United States, cannot, perhaps, have a master or a managing owner technically so called; but one owner, having the superintendence and control of the construction, with power to bind his fellows, may well be considered the managing owner or even the master, in the general sense of these terms.</p> <p>3. If a person furnishing materials for the construction of a vessel sue and recover a judgment against the contractor of the vessel for the value of the materials, such judgment is not an estoppel precluding a subsequent proceeding in rem against the vessel under the act of June 13, 1836, P. L. 617: Ron constat that both contractor and vessel may not be liable.</p> <p>4. When the claim of a libellant of a vessel to recover under said act for materials so furnished is rested upon an alleged express agreement of the owners to pay for them, and not upon the original order for the materials given by the builder, the question whether, under the contract between the owners and the builder, the title was in the former or in the latter at the time the materials were furnished, is immaterial.</p>