J. Homer Fritch, Inc. v. United States

[1,2] The plaintiffs complain of the conclusion of this court that there is “no evidence that the plaintiffs would have chartered the vessel or used it, or would have dene otherwise with it than they did but for the option.” It is earnestly insisted that the court below excluded evidence, proffered by the plaintiffs, which, if admitted, would have shown that this conclusion is incorrect. They point to the ruling of the court below on the question propounded by the plaintiffs:

This was offered “to show that the parties were acting in absolutely good faith, and that they actually did have prospects of selling the vessel.” The court below ruled that they were not required to show good faith, and excluded the offered testimony. Again the plain *134 tiffs offered in evidence a “memorandum” of date September IS, 1911, which was an option in which, in consideration of $1,000 paid by the holder thereof, he was given the right to purchase'the steamer within 15 days after the expiration of the government’s option, on paying therefor $7,000 in cash and executing notes for $27,000, the notes to draw interest at 6 per cent. The option further provided that if the purchase was not completed…