The M. L. C. No. 10
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
1Opinion of the CourtHough, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). The petitions by which the shipowners were impleaded are something of a curiosity, and should, as matter of pleading, have been met by a peremptory exception.
After setting out that the lighters libeled had either taken export cargo to an outgoing steamer or received imported goods from an incoming vessel, each petition avers that “there was and still is a general custom and usage in the shipping and lighterage business to the effect that * * * general cargoes delivered to [or from] other steamships under the same or similar circumstances [i. e., as in the…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Shively v. BowlbySupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Ex Parte EastonSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Transportation Co. v. ParkersburgSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Dutton v. StrongSupreme Court of the United States · 1861
- Cannon v. New OrleansSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Soderberg v. Atlantic Lighterage CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1927
- Soderberg v. Atlantic Lighterage Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1926
- Dezerene v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1945
- Schneider v. CowanDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1958
- Garcia & Diaz, Inc. v. Trans World Refining Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1960
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.