Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/62

 48 FBDBBAL BEPOBTEB. �in this, as in the other point, are supported by surrounding circum- stauces, — the master's repeated complaints and demanda ; seeking sjjpplies on the libellajat's credit, leaving the work only when they could not be obtained without pledging the vessel; and the absence of any other apparent motive for leaving. The failure of the libellant to keep his contract justified the respondent's wifiidrawal. The legal questions raised need not, therefore, be considered at this time. A decree will be entered for the respondent, with costs. ���Babge No. 6.* �{Circuit Court, E. D. Pennsylvania. July 5, 1881.) �L Bill of Sale— Iuttalidity op, "Ween 8iaiiAT0EB Obtained bt Fbaud— Decbbk of District Court Afpirmed. �Appeal from Decree of the District Court in Admirality. The facts of the case are fully reported in 6 Fed. Ebp. 732. �Walter George Smith and Francis Rawle, for appellant. �A. G. Sheldon and Curtis Tilton, for appellee. �MoKennan, C. J. The libellant is entitled to the relief which he seeks, if the bill of sale signed by him of date March 20, 1880, is not valid and binding upon him. While he admits the signing of it, he denies that he was acquainted with or informed of its contents, and says his execution of the paper was procured deceptively and fraudulently. If this be so, the bill would be totally ineffective as a transfer of the ownership of the vessel, whose possession he now seeks to recover. While the proofs are conflicting, the preponder- ance is in favor of libellant's hypothesis, that the bill of sale is invalid because of the ciroumstances touching the execution of it, and the subsequent use of it, not contemplated or intended by both the parties when it was signed. The opinion of the leamed judge in the court below, sufiSoiently indicates the reason for Such a conclu- sion, and it is not necessary to collate and discuss the evidence to show that such a conclusion of faot is maintainable. �The libellant is entitled to a decree for the deliveiy of the vessel, etc., to Mm, and for the payment of the agreed amount of damages, to wit, $275, and costs, and a decree will be entered accordingly. �♦Eeporied by Frank P. Prioliard, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar. ��� �