Legal Opinion
Tanker Hygrade No. 24, Inc. v. The Dynamic the Hygrade No. 24. The Choctaw
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided June 3, 1954No. 204, Docket 22979PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CHASE, Chief Judge.
Tanker Hygrade No. 24, Inc., the owner of the barge “Hygrade No. 24” brought this suit against the tug “Dynamic” to recover the damages alleged to have been sustained by the barge through the sole fault of the tug. Conners-Stand-ard Marine Corporation, owner of the tug, appearing as claimant, denied the allegations of fault in the libel and filed a cross-libel alleging that the tug “Choctaw,” which had. the barge in tow when it was injured, was solely at fault for the damage to it. There was a trial on the merits at which the claimant and cross-libellant rested at the close…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- The City of New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- The Victory & the PlymothianSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- The UmbriaSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- The SeveranceCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1945
- Matton Oil Transfer Corporation v. DynamicCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1941
3Cited by13 opinions
- Markell v. Sidney B. Pfeifer Foundation, Inc.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1980
- Louis Dreyfus & Cie. v. Panama Canal CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1962
- Mississippi Valley Barge Line Company, Libelant-Appellant v. Cooper Terminal Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1955
- Tanker Hygrade No. 24, Inc. v. The Tug DynamicCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1956
- Rederi A/B Soya v. SS Grand GraceCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1966
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.