United States v. Powell Bros. Barge No. 128
District Court, S.D. Florida
1Opinion of the Court
MEHRTENS, District Judge.
This is an action for property damage to an aqueduct or water pipeline incurred by libelant, United States of America, as a result of a'Collision between respondent Powell Bros., Inc.’s barge and the aqueduct. The respondent’s barge was never seized. Respondent impleaded the tug owner and operator, George C. Clark, and the tug “SEMINOLE.” The cause came on for trial, and the Court, having considered the pleadings and the evidence, makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Libelant, United States of America (USA), at all material…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Automobile Ins. v. Burns Bros.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1930
- Allied Chemical & Dye Corp. v. the Tug Christine MoranDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1961
3Cited by5 opinions
- S. C. Loveland, Inc. v. East West Towing, Inc.District Court, S.D. Florida · 1976
- Dow Chemical Co. v. Barge UM-23BDistrict Court, E.D. Louisiana · 1968
- Daniels Towing Service, Inc. v. Nat Harrison Associates, Inc.District Court, S.D. Florida · 1969
- Tug "Sea Hawk" v. Sococo, Ltd.District Court, S.D. Florida · 1988
- Tabago S. A. v. Sprigg CarrollDistrict Court, S.D. Florida · 1975