Legal Opinion

The Margaret Irving

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided January 5, 1931No. 155PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Per curiam

Though this is an appeal in the admiralty, the claimant has filed no assignments of error, and, under Rule 37 (3) of this court, cannot be heard to complain of so much of the decree as found the tug at fault. -

We cannot agree that the barge was chargeable with fault for the make-up of the tow. It has been the universal rule, so far as we know, that, as to this, the tug is master, •and the tow must follow her directions. The *231Quickstep, 9 Wall. 665, 19 L. Ed. 767; Eastern Transportation Line v. Hope, 95 U. S. 297, 24 L. Ed. 477; The Manhattan, 186 F. 329 (C. C. A. 2). See, also, Cranberry Creek…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Transportation Line v. HopeSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
  2. The QuickstepSupreme Court of the United States · 1870
  3. Cranberry Creek Coal Co. v. Red Star Towing & Transp. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1929
  4. The ManhattanCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1911

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. United States v. the Tug Terry E. BuchananDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1956
  2. Madeira Hill & Co. v. NevilleDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1931
  3. Bouchard Transp. Co. v. Conners Marine Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1942
  4. The Elizabeth M. MillerDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 1932
  5. The RaleighDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1943

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

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

Powered by the Exa API