Legal Opinion
In Re O'Donnell
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided May 14, 1928No. 288PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
L. HAND, Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).
The case confessedly turns upon the doctrine laid down in Sacramento Nav. Co. v. Salz, 273 U. S. 326, 47 S. Ct. 368, 71 L. Ed. 663, and followed in The Bathgate, 25 F.(2d) 103, 1928 A. M. C. 233 (C. C. A. 3). In those cases the tug and barge were owned in common and the appellants insist that the doctrine is confined to that situation. Yet it is apparent, we think, that ownership cannot in all eases be the decisive fact; for example, it can hardly be argued that, if the tug had been demised on a bare-boat charter, so as to be in the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Sacramento Navigation Co. v. SalzSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
- Short v. The ColumbiaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1896
- The J. P. DonaldsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Baltimore & Boston Barge Co. v. Eastern Coal Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1912
- The CoastwiseCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1916
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Tankers v. Steamtug Long BranchCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1958
- Diomede v. LoweCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1937
- The George W. PrattCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1935
- The R. Lenahan, Jr.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1931
- Mississippi Valley Barge Line Company v. T. L. James & Co., Inc., Mississippi Valley Barge Line Company v. T. L. James & Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1957
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.