The Milwaukee Bridge
District Court, S.D. New York
1Opinion of the CourtThacher, District Judge
(after stating the facts as above).
There can be no recovery for damage suffered after the discharge of the cargo, unless some wrongful act chargeable to the vessel is shown to have been the proximate cause thereof. Seeking to show that the action of the local authorities in condemning the entire shipment was the natural consequence of wrongful acts chargeable to the vessel; the libelant insists that the vessel was under a duty to separate the damaged flour from the balance of the shipment before delivery to the customs authorities. The bills of lading contained the following clause:
“After…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Milwaukee & Saint Paul Railway Co. v. KelloggSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- The SilviaSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- The GermanicSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
- Austin Nichols & Co. v. The Isla De Panay. Sanchez v. Same. E. Tolibia & Co. v. SameSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
- Muller v. Globe & Rutgers Fire Ins. of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1917
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Cory Bros. & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1931
- Tan Hi v. United StatesDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1950
- Lancashire Shipping Co. v. Morse Dry Dock & Repair Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1930
- Cory Bros. & Co. v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1930
- Janusz v. Northeast UtilitiesDistrict Court, D. New Hampshire · 2014