Legal Opinion
Kaufer Co. v. Luckenbach S. S. Co.
District Court, W.D. Washington
Decided January 11, 1924No. 6864PublishedCited by 11 opinions
In Admiralty. Libel by the Kauler Company against the Lucker~bach Steamship Comp2ny, [[Y;425;62;447;81]nc. Decree for respondent.
1Opinion of the Court
NI~Ti~R~R, Dstrict JudgeS
This case was before the court on cxcepi:ioi~s to the answer. 284 Fed. 160. The court there said:
"The answer is Iiarren of a~y aUe~ation a~ to the seaworthine~n of the ~hip. En the ebsence of such allegation, the exempUon clause that the responlcnt sliohid not be liable for `heat damages' is immaterial. Jt the vessel was seaworthy, the exemption is available, and the burden Is then on the shipper to show negligence, notwlthstanthiig seaworthiness."
An amci~dcd answer was flied, alleging seaworthiness. The case is now submitted upon the merits.
[1, 21 The Jib~iaut shows…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- The SouthwarkSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
- The SilviaSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Clark v. BarnwellSupreme Court of the United States · 1852
- The Henry B. HydeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1898
- Kaufer Co. v. Luckenbach S. S. Co.District Court, W.D. Washington · 1922
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- The Thomas P. BealCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1926
- The NewportCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1925
- G. Amsinck & Co. v. Pacific Mail S. S. Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1925
- S. L. Jones & Co. v. BennettCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1926
- The MauiCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1940
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.