Legal Opinion
G. Amsinck & Co. v. Pacific Mail S. S. Co.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided August 3, 1925No. 4527PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMcCAMANT, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). The negligence of the third assistant engineer is admitted, and respondents’ case is rested wholly on the third section of the Harter Act (27 Statutes, 445). This section is as follows:
“Sec. 3. That if the owner of any vessel transporting merchandise or property to or from any port in the United States of America shall exereise due diligence to- make the said vessel in all respects seaworthy and properly manned, equipped, and supplied, neither the vessel, her owner or owners, agent, or charterers, shall become or be held responsible for damage or loss…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- The SouthwarkSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
- The SilviaSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- International Navigation Co. v. Farr & Bailey Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1901
- The Carib PrinceSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- The GermanicSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Mississippi Shipping Co., Inc., Claimant-Appellant v. Zander and Company, Inc., Libellants-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1959
- The NewportCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1925
- Mississippi Shipping Co., Inc., Claimant-Appellant v. Zander and Company, Inc., Libellants-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1959