Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Contracts · MBE-tested
T. SMITH & SONS, Incorporated, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee
11 F.2d 1019·United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·1926
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
T. SMITH & SONS, Incorporated, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 8, 1926.)
No. 4711.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana; Rufus E. Foster, Judge.
George Janvier and Isaac S. Heller, both of New Orleans,- La., for appellant.
Edouard F. Henriques, Sp. Asst, in Admiralty to U. S. Atty., o,£ New Orleans, La.
Before WALKER and BRYAN, Circuit Judges, and GRUBB, District Judge.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a decree dismissing appellant’s libel, which alleges that appellant transferred 1,600 tons of coal from the steamer Sahale to barges under an oral contract with a representative of the United States, owner of the steamer, and that the contract price for the work had not been paid.
The position taken by the United States, and sustained by the District Judge upon consideration of the testimony, is that the contract was made not with appellant, but with the Bisso Tow Boat' Company. We are of opinion that a preponderance of the evidence shows that an agent of the Shipping Board employed the towboat company to do the work, and did not authorize it to act for the Shipping Board in making a contract with appellant.
The decree is affirmed.