Legal Opinion

Davidson v. Flood Bros.

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided January 14, 1929No. 5482PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DIETRICH, Circuit Judge.

By the decree below appellants (libelants) were denied recovery for damage from sea water to certain shipments of cork board carried on deck of appellees’ motorship Carriso on a voyage from Lisbon to San Francisco-. Ondeek stowage was pursuant to a clause in the bills of lading granting appellees “liberty to carry the goods and any other goods on deck or under deck.” And, the evidence being that cork board so carried is likely to be damaged to some extent by sea water, the sole question presented is whether the clause is within the denunciation of the Harter Act (27…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. The DelawareSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
  2. The Portuguese PrinceDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1913

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Pioneer Import Corporation v. the LafcomoDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1943
  2. Globe Solvents Co. v. the CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1948
  3. The IdefjordDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1939
  4. Everett Pulp & Paper Co. v. Mccormick S. S. Co.District Court, W.D. Washington · 1938
  5. Chester v. Maritima Del Litoral S.A.District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1984

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API