About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Caperton v. Bowyer U.S. 216 (1872)

handle is hein.slavery/ussccases0361 and id is 1 raw text is: 216 CAPERTON V. BOWYER. [Sup. Ct. Syllabus. yielded to the importunities of the owners of the ship and assumed the risk, subject to his claim on the owner of the ship for indemnity. !Faulty navigation is also shown, which of itself is a sufficient answer to the defence of inevitable accident. Palpable error is shown to have been set up in the orig- inal answer filed by the owners of the ship, and the court is not satisfied that the defence set up in the amended answer is entitled to any more credit. Such a defence as that set up, that a ferry-boat suddenly and improperly crossed the bows of the steamtug, if founded in fact, could easily be proved by those who were on board the ferry-boat and know what occurred. Instead of that, not even the name of the ftrry-boat is given, either in the answer or in the proofs, and. not a witness is called except the pilot and the master of the ship, and their statements in that behalf are not satis- factory. No such defence is set up in behalf of the steam- tug, and nothing of the kind was alleged in the original answer filed by the owners of the ship shortly after the suit was commenced. Neither of the courts below appear to have given that defence much credence, and this court con- curs with the subordinate courts that the defence is not established. DECREES AFFIRMED- CAPERTON v. B WYER. 1. A Southern State passed in 1865 a statute of limitations enacting that in computing the time in which any civil suit, proceeding, or appeal should be barred by any statute of limitation, the term of time from the 17th April, 1861, to the 1st March, 1865, should not be computed. It then passed another, enacting that the time from 1st March, 1865, to 27th February, 1866, should not be. The courts of that State were closed to loyal suitors by the rebellion between the 17th April, 1861, and the 27th February, 1866. On suit brought in Mfay, 1866, for a cause of action which arose in 1862, and which but for this deduction of time would have been barred in one year from 1862, by older statutes of iimita- tion, the defendant asked the court to charge that if the jury believed that the right to bring the suit accrued more than one year before the

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most