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

JuHr l6.-1dber os. Ro6eyts-Thc .,Srt,N mad
tho defendant 70 reconpenss him Skmasss for Il.
ct sold by him through to San Srarcscc ~ To -
receive back the price Of the tic xet On he routa
from Panama TO San Francisco a; ccusacrs.c. ~
the great delay which took plar : az Panama before
dict was taken at the trial .n. '1o' RO c,,n,o Vol,
the Court. feel satisfied 49, ~ snv ~
had on the former ground a. no Iaic;ert syvidancs
Of false representations aeso proved. The ticket is
s ns thsrs = nstbinr ect between the parties
As disclosed BY the sysSence showing sny represen.
tanons o. mdGce' A1ass 70 purchase Il that were not
nu s LDero = eQual difficulty in sustaining the
cfosod h e other ground The contract dis
csosed Dy 70 tidket was simply the sale Of q pas
1aSe N particular berth, on board the steamer
n 1nm9s 10 San Francisco, for the third voyage.
Ais contract no time was stated for her start
was il agreed that there should be any i'm
W. Aake connection with the steamer from New
! 81. After the arrival at Panama 1t was found
lat Che steamer Isthmus had not sailed on her So
, CUud trip, and 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 on her second trip
were engaged, 80 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 1t the delay, so 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.
1t is sought to apply to this the rule that when
person engages passage in q vessel, and no day
is named for the sailing that unless the vessel sails
within a reasonable time the contract is voii. Is
Cor4 dvntff iunu rrnt,o v1v1o tn ho
plicable in its fullest extent to this case still there
is ground for recovery. The contract for the
third trip of the Isthmus. There delay shown
in her sailing on the first trip and none is pretend
ed to have taken place between the second and third
trips. What would be reasonable time for sailing
the third trp2 Certainly period before the second
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 no delay in port, there was
no ground for recovery on account Of the day Of
sailing being unreasonably postponed. l 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 to
exchange his ticket as he might be too late, as the
steamer was q fast vessel Bot this was only adj
vice given by the defendant long after the sale Of
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
sustaining an action for false representations In
relation thereto. The verdict must be set aside and
dismissal of the complaint ordered.