Legal Opinion

National Bulk Carriers, Inc. v. United States

District Court, D. Delaware

Decided September 11, 1944No. Nos. 1567, 1568PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

LEAHY, District Judge.

These suits are for recovery of loss of the ships the “Mulligan” and “Bloom.”1 The libels and exceptions are identical in form. The case of the “Mulligan” (No. 1567) only will be discussed, but the dis*767cussion will apply mutatis mutandis to the “Bloom” (No. 1568).

The United States of America, acting through the War Shipping Administration, requisitioned the “Mulligan” and gave libellant the standard form of receipt.2 As stated in the receipt, the Administrator requisitioned the vessel pursuant to the authority granted in Sec. 902 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Brady v. Roosevelt Steamship Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1943
  2. Johnson v. United States Shipping Bd. Emergency Fleet CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
  3. Matson Navigation Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
  4. United States v. PfitschSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
  5. United States Shipping Bd. Emergency Fleet Corporation v. Rosenberg Brothers & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1928

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. United States v. LeahyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1945
  2. National Bulk Carriers, Inc. v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1947
  3. De La Rama S. S. Co. v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1951

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API