History
  • No items yet
midpage
Macfarlane v. Gilmore
1 Haw. 43
Haw.
1851
Check Treatment
Chief Justice Lee,

after summing up the facts, charged the jury that the plaintiff could not sustain his action against Gilmore alone. It must be brought against Gilmore and Vida jointly, they being joint and not several contractors. Secondly, the contract is executory, and the plaintiff cannot recover the purchase money for the vessel, until he has first tendered to Gilmore and Vida a good and sufficient bill of sale. The general maritime law requires such a bill, as the proper muniment of the title of the vessel.

The jury returned their verdict in favor of the defendant.

Case Details

Case Name: Macfarlane v. Gilmore
Court Name: Hawaii Supreme Court
Date Published: Jan 15, 1851
Citation: 1 Haw. 43
Court Abbreviation: Haw.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.