Legal Opinion

Mylroie v. British Columbia Mills Tug & Barge Co.

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided October 4, 1920No. 3448PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRoss, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above).

In support of the decree below the proctors for the appellee insist that, even though the evidence be held to show that the stranding of the barge and the consequent damage was caused by the negligence of the tug, yet its owner cannot be held liable therefor because of that clause of the contract between the parties reading: “The tug company is not to be held liable for any damage which might happen to the said barge Bangor or its cargo while in tow or at anchor.”

The contention of the appellant that there was a contrary verbal agreement cannot be sustained.…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. The OregonSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
  2. The CaledoniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
  3. The Edwin I. MorrisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
  4. The AriadneSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
  5. The Schooner Catharine v. DickinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1855

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Bisso v. Inland Waterways Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1955
  2. United States v. Norfolk-Berkley Bridge CorporationDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 1928
  3. Hall-Scott Motor Car Co. v. Universal Ins. Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1941
  4. Great Lakes Towing Co. v. American S. S. Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1948
  5. Bisso v. Inland Waterways Corp.District Court, E.D. Louisiana · 1953

11 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