Legal Opinion

Naamlooze Venootschap Maatschappij Stoomschip Barendrecht v. Moran Towing & Transportation Co.

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided June 15, 1925No. Nos. 356, 357PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHand, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above).

The fault of the Moran and of Reynolds seems to us too well established to require discussion. We think, however, that in those faults the Atlantic must share. We agree that the collision occurred in the channel, and that she was blowing proper fog signals; but we cannot agree that her speed was right in a fog. The District Court found it to have been from 4 to 5 miles an hour, though on her master’s testimony it was less. We think the probabilities coincide with the finding. The Moran was 250 or 300 feet in advance of the Barendrecht, and yet, although the…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. The UmbriaSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
  2. The ChinaSupreme Court of the United States · 1869
  3. The ChattahoocheeSupreme Court of the United States · 1899
  4. United States v. Norwegian Barque TheklaSupreme Court of the United States · 1924
  5. Sturgis v. BoyerSupreme Court of the United States · 1860

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. The Niels R. FinsenDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1931
  2. The No. 34District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1926
  3. Chile S. S. Co. v. RasmussenDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1931
  4. United States v. Tug Parris IslandDistrict Court, E.D. North Carolina · 1963
  5. Compania Maritima Samsoc Limitada, S. A. v. Moran Towing & Transp. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1952

5 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