Legal Opinion
Johnson v. Andrus
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided April 28, 1941No. 241PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Per curiam
We need not consider the original validity of Johnson’s claims, because we agree with Judge ITincks that whatever they were, he released them with full knowledge of what he was doing, and for an adequate consideration, satisfactory to himself. It is not necessary to go over the testimony upon which the judge’s finding was based. Johnson’s story stood alone; Andrus flatly denied it and McGee corroborated him. So far as we can tell from the printed page, the probabilities supported Andrus. Even if they did not, we should not intervene. While it is true that Admiralty Rule 46%, 28 U.S.C.A.…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- The Niel MaerskCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1937
- Barlow v. Pan Atlantic SS CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1939
- Commercial Molasses Corp. v. New York Tank Barge Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1940
- Bonici v. Standard Oil Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1939
- In Re Marine Transit CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1938
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Kulukundis Shipping Co. v. Amtorg Trading Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1942
- Petterson Lighterage & T. Corp. v. New York Central R. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1942
- Waterman v. AakreCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1941
- United States Gypsum Co. v. Conners Marine Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1941
- Johnson v. CooperCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1949
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.