Talbert v. United States
United States Court of Claims
On the Proofs. The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following are the facts as found by the court: I. Plaintiff is a resident of the District of Columbia; by occupation a ship-carpenter. As a ship-carpenter he was from time to time, between the years 1833 and 1882, employed at the Washington navy-yard, situated upon the Eastern Branch of the Potomac River.
Read the full summary
On the Proofs. The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following are the facts as found by the court: I. Plaintiff is a resident of the District of Columbia; by occupation a ship-carpenter. As a ship-carpenter he was from time to time, between the years 1833 and 1882, employed at the Washington navy-yard, situated upon the Eastern Branch of the Potomac River. In 1N60, when not in Government employment, he contemplated establishing at Washington, upon said Eastern Branch, a small ship-yard of his owu for the purpose of hauling out and repairing vessels. In measuring for the track of a marine…
1Opinion of the CourtDayis, J.
From 1833 until some time in 1860, plaintiff, who is by trade a ship-carpenter, was employed in the Washington navy-yard; in 1860 he was without employment and, contemplating the establishment of a private ship-yard upon the Eastern Branch *154of the Potomac, he was confronted with certain practical difficulties, which he undertook to surmount. The physical conditions existing' upon the Eastern Branch, particularly in relation to depth of water, were such that a marine railway having upon it a ship’s cradle of the design in common use could take out of the water only vessels of limited draught…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- The Suffolk Company v. HaydenSupreme Court of the United States · 1866
- United States v. PalmerSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Mason v. FearsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1850
- Cheang-Kee v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1866
- Dahlgren v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1880
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Farrand Optical Co., Inc. v. The United States of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1963
- General Paint Corporation v. KramerCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1933
- Hazen Mfg. Co. v. WarehamCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1917
- Consolidated Products Co. v. Blue Valley Creamery Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1938
- Cygnet Manufacturing Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1925
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.