Legal Opinion

Cornell Steamboat Co. v. United States

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided April 3, 1944PublishedCited by 13 opinions

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

  1. Nebbia v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
  2. Virginian Railway Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
  3. Liverpool & Great Western Steam Co. v. Phenix InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
  4. Gray v. PowellSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
  5. United States v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1936

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Cornell Steamboat Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
  2. Boston Tow Boat Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
  3. 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
  4. Application of Island Airlines, IncorporatedHawaii Supreme Court · 1963
  5. 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.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API