Legal Opinion
The St. Louis
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided February 7, 1928PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WINSLOW, District Judge.
It is conceded that the St. Louis had the right to limit its liability. The burden of the proof as to the merits is, therefore, on the claimant, and not on the petitioner for limitation. The claimant is really in the position of a libelant. In re Davidson S. S. Co. (D. C.) 133 F. 411.
The record clearly indicates to my mind that this was a crossing situation. The Henry C. Rowe was the burdened vessel, and in duty bound to keep out of the way of the ferryboat St. Louis. The master of the Rowe, on the stand, testified, in substance, that he knew it was a crossing…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- In re Davidson S. S. Co.District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1904
- The NorfolkDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1924
- Liverpool, Brazil & River Plate Steam Nav. Co. v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1926
- Taylor v. CrossleyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1897
3Cited by2 opinions
- Pennsylvania R. v. Delaware L. & W. R.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1932
- The P. R. R. No. 18Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1935