Cornell Steamboat Co. v. United States
District Court, S.D. New York
1Opinion of the Court
FRANK, Circuit Judge.
1. Plaintiff contends that, as a tower, it is not a “carrier by water” within the meaning of the Act. We cannot agree. Plaintiff literally “engage[s] in the transportation by water * * * of * * * property * * * for compensation,” which is the test under § 302(c) and (d). For the dictionary tells us that, nautically, to transport is “to haul a vessel by hawsers.” And a barge is both a “vessel” and “property.” Section 302(h) states that transportation “includes the use of any transportation facility” and § 302(g) includes, in the term “transportation facility,” “any…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Nebbia v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Virginian Railway Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
- Liverpool & Great Western Steam Co. v. Phenix InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Gray v. PowellSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- United States v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1936
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Cornell Steamboat Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Boston Tow Boat Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Mississippi Valley Barge Line Company v. T. L. James & Co., Inc., Mississippi Valley Barge Line Company v. T. L. James & Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1957
- Application of Island Airlines, IncorporatedHawaii Supreme Court · 1963
- Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co. v. T. L. James & Co.District Court, E.D. Louisiana · 1956
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.