Legal Opinion
J. Aron & Co. v. Dannebrog
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided May 7, 1923No. 273PublishedCited by 45 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHough, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). Considering the facts presented, it is quite impossible for Croasdale or the Crown to escape liability. Defense is made that the contract limited her load to a smaller amount than that with which she sank; i. e., that petitioners appellees overloaded her, and cannot therefore rely on that admitted implied warranty of seaworthiness which accompanied the vessel and affected her owner. As for the existence, nature, and extent of that warranty, it is enough to refer to The Sylvia, 68 Fed. 230, 232, 15 C. C. A. 362, affirmed 171 U. S. 462, 19 Sup. Ct. 7, 43 L.…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- The SilviaSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- EJ DuPont De Nemours & Co. v. VanceSupreme Court of the United States · 1857
- Tuthill v. . WilsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
- The Kathryn B. GuinanCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1910
- Tew v. . WolfsohnNew York Court of Appeals · 1903
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by45 opinions
- Commercial Molasses Corp. v. New York Tank Barge Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Caterpillar Overseas, S.A., Libellant-Appellant v. S.S. Expeditor and American Export Lines, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1963
- Ore Steamship Corporation v. D/SA/S HasselCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1943
- Commercial Molasses Corp. v. New York Tank Barge Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1940
- Boston Ins. Co. v. Dehydrating Process CoCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1953
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.