Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/861

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.

UNITBa) STATES «. MILLINGEE. 849 �trade was through the Gulf of Mexico, what necessity -was there for the permission to use gulf ports ? It might be nat- ural to exclude dangerous ports, but if the vessel was author- ized to coast through the gulf, the permission to use ports is unnecessary. Again, if the coasting trade upon the United States Atlantic coast necessarily implies voyages through the gulf, why was the permit given to use any ports not West of New Orleans, when these United States gulf iports had never been excluded in the printed part of the policy ? The fact that the vessel is to be a coaster on the United States Atlantic coast, coupled with a permit to use certain ports in the gulf, indicates that without the permit the vessel could not go into the gulf. The permit apparently enlarges the previous lim- itation, espeeially as domestic ports not wost of New Orleans had never been excladed. The meaning of the written mem- orandum was that the vessel was to be employed on the United States Atlantic coast, which was the coast of the Atlantic ocean, and not of the Gulf of Mexico; but that, if necessity or occasion required, she was to be permitted to go into the Gulf of Mexico and use the ports not west of . New Orleans, but not that her coasting trade was thereby to be extended through the gulf. When she was engaged in trans- porting a cargo from Maine to Morgan City, she was not in the Atlantic coasting trade, but upon a voyage outside of the terme of the contract. Let judgment be entered for the defendant. ���Uhitbd States v. Millinger and othera. {Cireuit Court, S. B. N&e York. February 2, 1880.) �JUDaMBNT — MiSTAKB. �The court has power to open a judgmeiit rendered upon default for the purpose of correcting errors of fact m the amount of the judgment arising from the inadvertent omission of the plaintifE to give credits and allow payments made by the defendant, or out of his property, upon the plaintifE'a claim, which should have been deducted at the time of the assessment of damages. v.7,no.l0— 5e ��� �