Legal Opinion

The Benjamin A. Van Brunt

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided January 16, 1925No. 179PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THOMPSON, District Judge.

The cause was referred to a commissioner for the purpose of ascertaining and computing the damages to be recovered by the libelant from the respondent, resulting from a collision held to have been caused by the sole fault of the steamship Cananova. The primary controversy before the commissioner arose over the contention of the respondent that the damages suffered by the Van Brunt caused a constructive total loss of the vessel by reason of the cost of repairs exceeding the market value of the vessel at the time of the collision in her condition immediately prior…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. The UmbriaSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
  2. The BaltimoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1869
  3. The Granite StateSupreme Court of the United States · 1866
  4. The BeaconsfieldSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
  5. Metropolitan S. S. Co. v. VanderbiltCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1896

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Brown & Root, Inc. v. American Home Assurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1965
  2. The GlendolaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1931
  3. The PriscillaDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1928
  4. Rodi v. DeanCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1943
  5. Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. Glendola S. S. Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1931

3 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