Legal Opinion

The Portchester

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided March 7, 1927No. 201PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHand, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above). Before considering the evidence upon the steamer’s fault, we pause to say that the tug’s liability is in any case established. While it may be true that one of the hawser’s three strands was not quite cut through, it is clear from Bagger’s uncontradicted testimony that so little was left as to give it only two-thirds of its strength. In the absence of any explanation by the tug, in Whose custody the hawser remained, as to when and how this cut was made,, we must assume that it existed when the tow was made up. Nor are we willing to speculate upon its…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. The SunnysideCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1918
  2. The Washington IrvingCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1918

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Lowery v. Hudson River Day Line, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 1955
  2. The Robert H. SmithDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1933
  3. The Elizabeth M. BakerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1934
  4. Dufrene v. The Tug DiversityDistrict Court, E.D. Louisiana · 1958

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API