Koch-Ellis Marine Contractors, Inc., Individually and as of the Fella C v. Chemical Barge Lines, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
1Per curiam
This is an appeal from a decree in admiralty, dividing collision damages between the Ruby 0 and the Fella C, in .accordance with the opinion 1 of the district judge, that Article 29, Inland Rules, 33 U.S.C.A. § 221, our decisions in Smith v. Bacon, 5 Cir., 194 F.2d 203, and G. B. Kigler Co. v. Barker Barge Line, 5 Cir., 167 F.2d 676, and the rule of The Pennsylvania, 19 Wall. 125, 126, 136, 86 U.S. 125, 126, 136, 22 L.Ed. 148, required this, though the faults of the Ruby O were gross and wanton and directly responsible for the collision and the only fault of the Fella C was the failure to…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- The PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- Compania De Maderas De Caibarien, S. A. v. The Queenston Heights, Etc., Esso Shipping CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1955
- Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. Inc. v. SmithCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1950
- Seaboard Tug & Barge, Inc. v. Rederi Ab/disaCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1954
- G. B. Zigler Co. v. Barker Barge LineCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1948
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Fort Fetterman v. South Carolina State Highway DepartmentCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1958
- The Andros Shipping Co., Ltd. v. Panama Canal Company, and Empresa Nacional Del Petroleo, Empresa Nacional Del Petroleo v. Panama Canal CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1962
- William Clyde Mason v. Lynch Brothers Company, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1956
- Fort Fetterman v. South Carolina State Highway DepartmentCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1958
- Walter G. Hougland, Inc. v. The M/V CarportDistrict Court, E.D. Louisiana · 1961
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.