Legal Opinion
The G. R. Crowe
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided December 3, 1923No. 41PublishedCited by 40 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMayer, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). The essential features of the case are stated in the opinion of Judge Ward below.
As there is argument here that the vessel was not seaworthy, we state at the outset that we are satisfied that she was unseaworthy, within the definition of The Southwark, 191 U. S. 1, 24 Sup. Ct. 1, 48 L. Ed. 65, for manifestly, on the evidence, the leakage of about 11 per cent, was due to the fact that the oil tanks were defective. Thus we are brought to the two principal contentions of appellant.
1. Whether article 16 modifies the warranty of article 3 presents a familiar…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- The SouthwarkSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
- The SilviaSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- The DelawareSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Knott v. Botany MillsSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- The FriCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1907
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by40 opinions
- Commercial Molasses Corp. v. New York Tank Barge Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Nichimen Company, Inc. v. M. v. Farland, Her Engines, Boilers, Etc., and A/s Vigra, Defendants-Appellants-Appellees v. Seaboard Shipping Co., Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1972
- Leach v. Hedger Transp. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1933
- Koppers Connecticut Coke Co. v. James McWilliams Blue Line, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1937
- The WestmorelandCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1936
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.