v0784-419

No. 2208.

IN THE

United States Circuit Court of Appeals

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RICHMOND DREDGING COMPANY

(a Corporation),

Appellant,

VS.

STANDARD AMERICAN DREDG-

ING COMPANY (a Corporation), et

al.,

Appellees.

APPELLANT'S REPLY BRIEF.

It is true that the order for the release of the vessel

read "conditioned for the return of said dredge to the

owners" ; but the bond itself says nothing about own-

ers, it simply provides for '*a return, in the same con-

dition," etc., ; a surety has a right to stand on the strict

letter of his obligation, and as the bond does not say

to whom it shall be returned, the surety would, we

think, have the right to claim that it should be re-

turned to the possession of the party in whose pos

session it was at the time he became such surety, but

we think that point not of very great importance.

---

archive.org Volume Name: govuscourtsca9briefs0784

Volume: http://archive.org/stream/govuscourtsca9briefs0784

Document Link: http://archive.org/stream/govuscourtsca9briefs0784#page/n418/mode/1up

Top Keywords (auto-generated):

richmond, dredging, right, dredger, property, american, standard, damages, possession, contract, dredge, bond, oakland, replevin, libellant

Top Key Phrases (auto-generated):

american dredging, standard american, dredger richmond, richmond dredging, pos session, january ist, dredger oakland, atlas engines, san rafael, prop erty, ist 191, detriment resulting, deep ening, contractual right, august 15th

Document Status: UGLY