Legal Opinion

Burns Bros. v. City of New York

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided January 25, 1938PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

LEIBELL, District Judge.

Suits in admiralty by Burns Bros., Inc., as owner of the barges B.B. No. 167, B.B. No. 29, and B.B. No. 52, by Anthony O’Boyle, Inc., as owner of the barge Hazel Hinds, and on behalf of the barge captain for loss of personal .effects, and by the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Coal Company, as owner of a part cargo of coal laden on the barge B.B. No. 167: the City of New York was ñamad respondent in all three actions and, under Admiralty Rule 56, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723, impleaded Burns Bros., Inc., as corespondent in the latter .two actions. The alleged…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. District of Columbia v. MoultonSupreme Court of the United States · 1901
  2. The JuniorCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1922
  3. Quinn v. Complete Electric Const. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1891
  4. Hastorf v. Hudson River Stone Supply Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1901
  5. United States Trucking Corp. v. City of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1927

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Crim v. Lumbermens Mut. Casualty Co.District Court, District of Columbia · 1939
  2. Satink v. Holland Tp.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1940
  3. Thompson v. CranstonDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 1942
  4. Rutherford v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 1945
  5. Todd Atlantic Shipyards Corp. v. SouthportDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 1951

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API