Legal Opinion

The West Hartland

District Court, W.D. Washington

Decided September 21, 1923No. 6426PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

NETERER, District Judge.

The mere delay in the surrender may not be treated as an assumption of the liability of the vessel, and forfeiture of right to limitation. The Benefactor, 103 U. S. 247, 26 L. Ed. 466. Was the value of the interest of the petitioner at the time of the surrender less than at the close of the voyage? The City of Norwich, 118 U. S. 468, 6 Sup. Ct. 1150, 30 L. Ed. 134. Did the delayed surrender result in prejudice to creditors by reason of which they did not recover the amount or value of the interest of the owner, etc.? Both questions must be answered in the negative. The…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. The City of New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
  2. The " Scotland"Supreme Court of the United States · 1882
  3. The City of NorwichSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
  4. The Ludvig HolbergSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
  5. Steamship Co. v. MountSupreme Court of the United States · 1881

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Hosford Transp. Co. v. Fairfield S. S. Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1933
  2. The Kaga MaruDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 1927
  3. Border Line Transp. Co. v. LloydDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 1931

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

Powered by the Exa API