Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/223

 208 FEDERAL REPORTBR. �Lawbencb and others v. Moeeisania Steam-Boat Co. �(Dist/rict Court, E. D. New Twk. October 24, 1881.) �1. Repaies to Vbssbl — Contract — Perpohmancb. �h. & Co., ghipwrights, made an ofler, by letter, to the M. Steam-boat Co. to repair one of their steam-boats, which was accepted, and L. & Co. proceeded to do the work. Payments on account were made wliile the work was in progress, and a note for the balance of the bill given. Paymentof the note at maturity was refused on the ground that the contract hadnot been fully performed. L. & Co. flled a libel to recover the balance claimed to be due, and the .Com- pany in their an,swer set up a special agieement to niake the boat stiii and strong as new, and remedy the defect which made lier " cranky," and non- performance thereof. Beld, that the special agreement was not found by the testimony ; that the written contract in the letter was the. only one by which to determine the right of the parties ; and, the terms of that having been per- formed, the libellants were entitled to be paid the balance due. �In Admiralty. �Scudder <e Carter, for libellant. �T. C. Cranin, for libellee. �Benediot, D. J. Upon the testimony there is little room to doubt that the libellant is entitled to recover the portion of his bill for work done upon the defendant's steam-boat, Shady Side, that remains unpaid. The letter of the libellant, dated April 10, 1880, containsa statement of the work he ofifered to do. The defendants, by their let- ter of April 14, 1880, accepted the libellant's offer as made. These two letters constitute a written contract by which alone the rights of the parties must be determined. These letters contain nothing in the shape of a warranty on the part of the libellant that the altera- tion he proposed to make in the boat's hull would make her stifif, and remedy the existing defect in her build, and for that reason it must be held that the special agreement set up in the answer bas not been proved. This view of the matter in controversy renders it unneces- sary to pass upon the conflicting testimony given in respect to con- versations and negotiations had prior to the reduction of the contract to writing. It should, however, be said that the acts of the parties subsequent to the aceeptance of the libellant's offer are in harmony with the view I have adopted, and confirm me in the opinion that the libellant bas performed his contract and is entitled to be paid the sum claimed in the libel. �Let a decree be entered to that effect. ��� �