TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Horan v. Hughes

Horan v. Hughes, 129 F. 248 (S.D.N.Y. 1903)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court, S.D. New York · Federal District Courts
Decided
May 15, 1903
Judges
Holt
Citations
129 F. 2481903 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14
Cited by 13
Syllabus
1. Contracts — Defense of Agency. Defendant, to sustain the defense against his contract with plaintiff that he was acting as agent, must prove that he disclosed the name of his principal. It is not enough that plaintiff supposed he was acting for some one not disclosed. If 1. See Principal and Agent, vol. 40, Cent. Dig. §§ 501, 522.
Summary
In Admiralty.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Holt

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

HOLT, District Judge.

Hughes made the contract with Horan. He is therefore presumably responsible on it. His defense is, in substance, that he was acting as agent for a principal. To maintain such a defense, he must prove that he disclosed the name of his principal. It is not sufficient that he was acting as agent, or that the other party to the contract supposed he was acting as agent, if he did not know who the principal was. De Remer v. Brown, 165 N. Y. 419 , 59 N. E. 129 ; Tew v. Wolfsohn (Court of Appeals) 66 N. E. 934 . The evidence in this case, in my opinion, preponderates that Hughes either chartered Horan’s boat himself, or that, if Horan supposed Hughes was acting as agent, he did not know who Hughes’ principal was.

There should be a decree for the libelant for the amount demanded in the libel, with costs.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 13 cases

View all citing references →
1904: 11921: 11923: 11926: 11927: 11932: 11938: 11944: 11945: 11948: 11949: 11954: 11972: 119042026peak 1904 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. J. Aron & Co. v. Dannebrog290 F. 733 (2d Cir. 1923)
  2. Orient Mid-East Lines v. Albert E. Bowen, Inc.458 F.2d 572 (2d Cir. 1972)
  3. Dorsey v. Martin58 F. Supp. 722 (E.D. Pa. 1945)
  4. Mallory S. S. Co. v. Garfield10 F.2d 664 (2d Cir. 1926) · Dissent
  5. Lewis v. United States Nav. Co.57 F. Supp. 652 (S.D.N.Y. 1944)
  6. Pa. Railroad v. Rothstein & Sons165 A. 752 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1932)

Most recent

  1. Orient Mid-East Lines v. Albert E. Bowen, Inc.458 F.2d 572 (2d Cir. 1972)
  2. Cleary Brothers v. Christie Scow Corporation215 F.2d 740 (2d Cir. 1954)
  3. Scire v. American Export Lines, Inc.197 Misc. 422 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1949)
  4. Koistinen v. American Export Lines, Inc.194 Misc. 942 (1948)
  5. Dorsey v. Martin58 F. Supp. 722 (E.D. Pa. 1945)
  6. Lewis v. United States Nav. Co.57 F. Supp. 652 (S.D.N.Y. 1944)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
De Remer v. Brown, 59 N.E. 129 (N.Y. 1901) 20

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list