Armstrong Cork Co. v. Farrell Line, Inc.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
HALL, District Judge.
The plaintiff’s claim in and of itself is non-maritime in nature. The damage occurred in the warehouse on the pier, while the goods were waiting to be loaded on the ship, and before any of the particular goods which were damaged were actually in the process of loading. The plaintiff seeks to invoke admiralty jurisdiction solely on the basis that the goods were received by the respondent under a dock receipt to -ship and to issue a bill of lading, and were so held at the time of the fire which caused the damage. Libelant asserts that the dock receipt is thus a maritime…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Compagnie Francaise De Navigation a Vapeur v. BonnasseCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1927
- The CianoDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1945
- Gronvold v. SuryanDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 1935
- American Mills Co. v. Luckenbach S. S. Co.District Court, E.D. Louisiana · 1927
3Cited by12 opinions
- David Crystal, Inc. v. Cunard Steam-Ship CompanyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1963
- Luckenbach Steamship Co. v. Coast Manufacturing & Supply Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1960
- Flota Maritima Browning De Cuba, Sociadad Anonima v. SnoblCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1966
- Marubeni-Iida (America), Inc. v. Nippon Yusen KaishaDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1962
- Howmet Corporation v. Tokyo Shipping Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1971
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.