Legal Opinion

John Baizley Iron Works v. United States

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided February 7, 1925PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DICKINSON, District Judge.

All the above proceedings were for trial purposes consolidated and heard together. The conclusion reached turns upon. a question of law. Prior to the act of Congress of June 23, 1910 (Comp. St. §§ 7783-7787) we had several accepted doctrines of the admiralty law upon the faith of which those concerned with vessels dealt. One was the familiar fiction, peculiar to the law maritime, that a vessel is an animate, sensate, and responsible personality, which could feel needs, and, having them, could supply them, and make itself responsible for what was supplied. There was,…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. United States v. CarverSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
  2. Morse Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1924
  3. Standard Oil Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1924
  4. The HurricaneDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1924
  5. Frey & Son, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1924

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Tampa Ship Repair and Dry Dock Company, Inc. v. Esso Export CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1956
  2. Kane v. Motor Vessel LedaDistrict Court, E.D. Louisiana · 1972
  3. The Little CharleyDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1929
  4. St. Louis Shipbuilding & Steel Company v. First National Bank and Trust Company of Vicksburg, MississippiCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1961
  5. S.S. Omnium Freighter v. Northwest Marine Ironworks, Inc., Libelant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1965

1 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