Legal Opinion

Pittsburg & Erie Coal Co. v. George Urban Milling Co.

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided December 12, 1916No. 32PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Appeals from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of New York; John R. Hazel, Judge. Suits in admiralty by the Pittsburg & Erie Coal Company, owner of the steam barge P. D. Armour, against the George Urban Milling Company and against the Buffalo Grain Company. Decrees for libelant, and respondents appeal. The libelant is a corporation existing under tbe laws of the state of Pennsylvania.

Read the full summary

Appeals from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of New York; John R. Hazel, Judge. Suits in admiralty by the Pittsburg & Erie Coal Company, owner of the steam barge P. D. Armour, against the George Urban Milling Company and against the Buffalo Grain Company. Decrees for libelant, and respondents appeal. The libelant is a corporation existing under tbe laws of the state of Pennsylvania. Two actions in personam in admiralty were begun by tbe libelant, owner of tbe steam barge P. D. Armour; one against the George Urban Company, and one against tbe Buffalo Grain…

1Opinion of the CourtRogers, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above). The question presented to this court is whether this steamship was stranded through negligent navigation. If she was, of course, the consignees of the cargo are relieved from contribution and general average, and the decree must be reversed.

[ 1 ] In any action to enforce general average the ship does not establish her claim upon proof of the bare fact that she stranded. As this court said in Phipps v. The Nicanor, 44 Fed. 504 (1890):

“Sbe would bave to show sufficient of tbe attending circumstances to warrant tbe inference that sbe stranded without fault.”

In…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. The Eli B. ConineCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1916
  2. Phipps v. The NicanorU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1890

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. The Mary F. BarrettDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1921

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API