Legal Opinion

The Rambler

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided May 7, 1923No. 245PublishedCited by 34 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHough, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above). This is the ordinary application for limitation of' shipowner’s liability under R. S. § 4283 (Comp. St. § 8021); the prayer of the petition is in the common alternative, viz. that absence of all liability be decreed and enforced, or that limitation be granted in respect of such liability as may be found.

*792The form of the prayer indicates the two branches of investigation, which must be pursued on every' such petition. The first duty of the court is to ascertain whether any liability exists, and if none exists there is the end of the matter. But if liability…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. The RepublicCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1894
  2. Oregon Ry. & Nav. Co. v. LawtonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1896
  3. In re P. Sanford Ross, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1913
  4. Rose v. Stephens & Condit Transp. Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1882
  5. Central R. v. PelusoCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1923

3Cited by34 opinions

  1. The 84-HCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1923
  2. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. BrasileiroCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1947
  3. Waterman Steamship Corporation v. Gay Cottons, United States of America and Shalom Baby WearCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1969
  4. Eac Timberlane, Etc. v. Pisces, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1984
  5. Southern Pac. Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1934

29 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