The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-06-16

Juu lS.-Thber us. Ro6ets-The .,.a,.w .a
the defendsnt to reconpense him SSmsses for Al
legged fraudulent Representations in .eeard % tick-
ct sold BY him through TO San frsnciacc cr ~
receive back the price Of the tic re- On he ronta
from Panams 70 San Francisco, Un s"o lUus 20
the great delay which took plar At Panama before
the sailing OF tne e. steamer som that port yer.
the Court feel satisfied 10 ~ cs ~
had on the former ground AZ no s,a,cort Sanco
Of false representations eerc nroved The tcIet 10
the evidence q the Issxact between the parties.
anu snG.c ~ .has ecanected with the sale Of It,
tations or indncer 80 ~ nnychass thst r ,n.
true. There n eQual officially in sustaining the
action upon 70 other ground. The contract, dis
Csosea ~ Va Gdket, was simply the sale of pas
IaSe, ~ particular berth, on board the steamer
M ihnm9s 10 San Francisco, for the third voyage.
Upon AIR contract no time was stated for her start
Ing, sr was il agreed that there should be any i'm
W W. Aake connection with the steamer from New
~. After the arrival at Panama 1t was found
hat Che steamer Isthmus had not sailed her 30
oUud trip, and Q delay Of more than two months
would take place before the third trip would be
made. No presumption can be drawn from any
thing in evidence before me, to warrant the conclu
sion that the parties intended to contract for any
other trip than that named. It may have been
known Gas appears to have subsequently been the
fact), that the steamers berths her second trip
were engaged, 30 that no more could be sold, and
in the press Of passengers, ticket secured in the
third trip may have been desirable. It cannot be
said that the parties contracted for anything else,
or that the defendant has violated the contract so
made by him. The plaintiff doubtless was disap-
pointed at the delay, 30 much SO as to abandon
his right 70 passage, and seek one by another
route, but such disappointment furnishes no
ground for recovery, without evidence of fraud
breach of contract the part Of the defendant.
is sought to apply to this the rule that when
| person engages passage in q vessel, and no day
s named for the sailing that unless the vessel sails
within reasonable time the contract is voii. Is
Card Perry, $685. Admitting such rule to be ap-
plcable in its fullest extent to this CASE still there
is no ground for recovery The contract for the
third trip of the lsthmus. There delay shown
in her sailing the first trip and none is pretend
ed to have taken place between the second and third
trips. What would be unreasonable time for sailing
the third trip? Certainly period before the second
l trip was finished. reasonable time for the third
trip must be after the second trip as was
cessary for putting the vessel in condition for the
voyage. As there was no delay in port, there was
| no ground Tor recovery on account Of the day of
sailing being unreasonably postponed. have not
referred to the conversation proven to have taken
place in New York the day the steamer sailed, in
regard to the doubts entertained by the plaintiff
whether the steamers would connect and the advice
given by the defendants to the plaintiff not tt
exchange his ticket as he might be too late as tn,
steamer was a fast vessel But this was only ad
vice given by the defendant long after the sale o.
the ticket and not calculated to deceive or lead to
any contract. Giving erroneous advice or express
ing an erroneous opinion which does not enter into
or form any inducement to the contract, cannot be
available for the purpose Of defeating the contract
or sustaining action for false representations In
relation thereto The verdict must be set aside and
Q dismissal Of the complaint ordered.