Polarus Steamship Co. v. United States
District Court, S.D. New York
1Opinion of the Court
CLANCY, District Judge.
Respondent has excepted to the libels because these five suits in admiralty were not instituted within two years after the several claims arose as required by the Suits in Admiralty Act, 46 U.S.C.A. § 745. The actions are alike. Each is for a breach of the bareboat charter of a vessel by respondents to libellant. It is alleged that under the terms of the charter respondents assumed responsibility for the cost and time of repairs occasioned by latent defects in the vessel, its machinery or appurtenances or defects due to locked-in stresses existing at the time of…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Minturn v. MaynardSupreme Court of the United States · 1855
- United States Shipping Bd. Emergency Fleet Corporation v. Rosenberg Brothers & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1928
- Cory Bros. & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1931
- Admiral Oriental Line v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1936
- Armour & Co. v. Fort Morgan Steamship Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Pacific Atlantic S. S. Co. v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 1954