Legal Opinion

United States v. Atlantic Refining Co.

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided May 8, 1929PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtThacher, District Judge

(after stating facts as above). The designation of Smith’s Bluff as the loading point fixed the primary obligation of the vessel to proceed there before announcing arrival and readiness to load. Until she “arrived,” no obligation could arise to furnish caigo. But here, as in so many cases, the obligation to proceed to the place of loading is qualified by the phrase, “or as near thereunto as she may safely get (always afloat) and there load * * * a full and complete cargo.” In this case, the clause appears from the context to have reference to the port, not merely to a place of loading within…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. The Gazelle and CargoSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
  2. Yone Suzuki v. Central Argentine Ry., Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1928
  3. Mencke v. Cargo of Java SugarSupreme Court of the United States · 1902
  4. F. S. Royster Guano Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1924
  5. Thomas Bell & Co. v. StewartCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1929

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Sun Oil Co. v. Atlantic Refining Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1930

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

Powered by the Exa API