Legal Opinion
The Texas Maru
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided July 20, 1926No. 302PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHand, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). The natural meaning of the clause, “on taking delivery,” would be taking possession, and would only involve a conscious acceptance — some assumption of control or custody of the goods. But to construe the clause literally in that way might endanger its validity; that is, if it were applied without allowing the consignee some preliminary opportunity to examine. So long as such documents are not controlled by statute, we must treat them as genuine contracts, and their terms as seriously intended; in the case at bar this is easier, because the bill of lading…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Queen of the PacificSupreme Court of the United States · 1901
- Anchor Line (Henderson Bros.), Ltd. v. JacksonCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1925
- The San GuglielmoCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1918
- WR Grace & Co. v. Panama R. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1926
- Mercantile Bank of Americas, Inc. v. Panama RailroadCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1924
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- E. Gerli & Co. v. Cunard S. S. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1931
- Scheibel v. Agwilines, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1946
- Cudahy Packing Co. v. Munson S. S. LineCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1927
- The Jl LuckenbachCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1933
- T. M. Duche & Sons v. MediterraneoDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1928
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.