Legal Opinion

The Phoenicia

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided October 24, 1898PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BROWN, District Judge.

The above four libels were filed in behalf of some 60 consignees to recover the damage to their goods, which v,ere shipped at Hamburg in January, 18i)5, on board the new steamship Phoenicia, and damaged to the amount of about $1-0,000 on the voyage to New York. The goods in question were all stowed in the between-deeks of compartment No. 4, and consisted of a large quantity of sugar in bags, and much other miscellaneous merchandise, such as linen goods, hosiery, woollens, paper, rubber goods, earthenware, toys, musical instruments, hardware, feathers, barley, coffee,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. The Edwin I. MorrisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
  2. Carter v. The MascotteCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1892
  3. Carter v. The MascotteDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1891

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Putnam v. The ManitobaDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1900
  2. Reliance Insurance Company v. BrickenkampDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1962
  3. The NinfaDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 1907
  4. California & Hawaiian Sugar Refining Corp. v. RideoutCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1931
  5. California Victor Distributing Co. v. Luckenbach S. S. Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1932

8 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