Alltransport, Inc., Libellant-Appellant v. D. B. Deniz Nakliyati T. A. S. (D. B. Turkish Cargo Lines)

Third Circuit

Alltransport, Inc., Libellant-Appellant v. D. B. Deniz Nakliyati T. A. S. (D. B. Turkish Cargo Lines)

371 F.2d 1017

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedFebruary 14, 1967

Docket16134_1

StatusPublished

This text of 371 F.2d 1017 (Alltransport, Inc., Libellant-Appellant v. D. B. Deniz Nakliyati T. A. S. (D. B. Turkish Cargo Lines)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alltransport, Inc., Libellant-Appellant v. D. B. Deniz Nakliyati T. A. S. (D. B. Turkish Cargo Lines), 371 F.2d 1017 (3d Cir. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a suit in admiralty in which the libellant sought to hold the respondent, a Turkish corporation, liable for the balance due on an indebtedness incurred by Ipar Transport, Ltd., another Turkish corporation. It was the contention of the libellant that an exchange of cables and correspondence between the parties constituted a contract under which the respondent assumed responsibility for the payment of the said indebtedness. The libellant sought to hold the respondent liable also on the theory of promissory estoppel. After a full hearing on the merits the court below found in favor of the respondent and entered a decree accordingly. This appeal followed.

We have considered the several arguments advanced in support of reversal and find them lacking in merit. We are convinced from our review of the record that there was no error in either the proceedings or the result reached by the trial judge.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed on its well reasoned opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This is a suit in admiralty in which the libellant sought to hold the respondent, a Turkish corporation, liable for the balance due on an indebtedness incurred by Ipar Transport, Ltd., another Turkish corporation. It was the contention of the libellant that an exchange of cables and correspondence between the parties constituted a contract under which the respondent assumed responsibility for the payment of the said indebtedness. The libellant sought to hold the respondent liable also on the theory of promissory estoppel. After a full hearing on the merits the court below found in favor of the respondent and entered a decree accordingly. This appeal followed.

We have considered the several arguments advanced in support of reversal and find them lacking in merit. We are convinced from our review of the record that there was no error in either the proceedings or the result reached by the trial judge.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed on its well reasoned opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

371 F.2d 1017, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alltransport-inc-libellant-appellant-v-d-b-deniz-nakliyati-t-a-s-ca3-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack