Legal Opinion

Southard v. Bennett, Day & Co.

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided May 27, 1924No. 328PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HOUGH, Circuit» Judge

(after slating the facts as above). Argument for appellant asserts that the charter party gave tho vessel a lien for freight. Such lien “generally is favored by the courts” (The Kimball, 3 Wall. 37-42, 18 L. Ed. 50), and the usual charier party engagement clause here used, and quoted above, although in itself a mere penalty (Watts v. Camors, 115 U. S. 353, 6 Sup. Ct. 91, 29 L. Ed. 406), is evidence that the creation of a lien to enforce the provisions of the charter party -was present in tho minds of the parties when they signed agreement (The Kimball, supra, at page 44).…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. The KimballSupreme Court of the United States · 1866
  2. Watts v. CamorsSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
  3. Gracie v. PalmerSupreme Court of the United States · 1823
  4. Davis v. Smokeless Fuel Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1912
  5. Jebsen v. A Cargo of HempDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1915

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Union Industrielle Et Maritime v. Nimpex International, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1972
  2. Seas Shipping Co. v. Approximately 3,251,000 Feet, Board Measure, of LumberCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1933
  3. The SolhaugDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1931
  4. Aktieselskab Venborg v. Certain Freights & SubfreightsDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1931
  5. Seas Shipping Co. v. 3,251,000 Feet of LumberDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1931

1 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