Northern Commercial Co. v. Lindblom
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the CourtMorrow, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above).
The defendant contends that the motion to instruct the jury to find a verdict for the defendant should have been granted, upon the ground that the ownership of the goods at the time they were placed on the steamer Saidie was in the Lucky Three Mining Company, a partnership. It is true that the plaintiff in the course of his testimony did say that, “When the goods were on the Saidie, they belonged to the company”; but he also stated the facts concerning his purchase and shipment of the goods to the *99Lucky Three Mining Company, from which it appeared that the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Mobile & Montgomery Railway Co. v. JureySupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- In re Pacific Mail S. S. Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1904
- The Arctic BirdDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1901
- In re MeyerDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1896
- Ringgold v. Haven & LivingstonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1850
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Tug Ocean Prince, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1978
- O'Hara v. Luckenbach Steamship Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Mitsui & Co., Ltd. And Ataka & Co., Ltd., Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross v. American Export Lines, Inc., Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant. Armstrong Cork Canada, Ltd., and Armstrong Cork Company v. American Export Lines, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1981
- Mitsui & Co. v. American Export Lines, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1981
- The Framlington CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1934
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.