Legal Opinion
In Re New York Dock Co.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided November 7, 1932No. 27, 28PublishedCited by 28 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtChase, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above).
Whatever the legal obligations of the New York Doek Company, under the charter or otherwise, may be to Converse, this claimant must loqk for indemnity solely to his employer, Converse, who had the entire control of the pile driver. Its faulty condition was not due to any hidden defect. Converse chartered the pile.driver in its then present condition, after Heyer, his superintendent,' had looked it over and decided that it was suitable for the intended job. Converse was to, and did, rig it for use. No one understood that it was ready for use when chartered.…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- MacPherson v. . Buick Motor Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1916
- Thomas v. . WinchesterNew York Court of Appeals · 1852
- Spencer Kellogg & Sons, Inc. v. HicksSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Devlin v. . SmithNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
- Smith v. Peerless Glass Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1932
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Coryell v. PhippsSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Continental Oil Company v. Bonanza Corporation, and Republic Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1983
- Marion Lee Avera and Daniel J. Avera v. Florida Towing Corporation, Florida Towing Corporation v. Marion Lee Avera and Daniel J. AveraCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1963
- Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. BrasileiroCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1947
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.