Sacramento Nav. Co. v. Salz
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the CourtGilbert, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). The appellant contends that, the cargo having been loaded on a barge, which became an instrument in the transportation of the cargo only in connection with the tug, the situation was the same as if it had been carried on the tug, and that the relation between the appellee and the appellant was solely one of affreightment. But there was no contract here between the appellee and the barge and the tng. The bill of lading was made with the barge, and did not include the tug, and there is nothing therein to indicate that the tug and the tow were engaged in a…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Liverpool & Great Western Steam Co. v. Phenix InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- The DelawareSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- The Steamer SyracuseSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- The IrrawaddySupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- The Main v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Mississippi Valley Barge Line Company v. T. L. James & Co., Inc., Mississippi Valley Barge Line Company v. T. L. James & Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1957
- Banks v. Chas. Kurz Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1946
- Bisso v. Inland Waterways Corp.District Court, E.D. Louisiana · 1953
- The Sea LionDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1926
- Bisso v. Inland Waterways Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1955
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.