Bouker Contracting Co. v. Fox

Second Circuit

Bouker Contracting Co. v. Fox

214 F. 774, 131 C.C.A. 186, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 1181

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedApril 7, 1914

DocketNo. 148

StatusPublished

This text of 214 F. 774 (Bouker Contracting Co. v. Fox) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bouker Contracting Co. v. Fox, 214 F. 774, 131 C.C.A. 186, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 1181 (2d Cir. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The cause was tried in court, and the only substantial question is one of fact. There was testimony — abundant testimony — which, if credited, would establish the proposition that the [775]*775scow struck, not on the old riprap', which was In the channel before Fox began his work, but on a- fragment of stone or concrete which he had blasted off the pier and had not removed from the channel into which it fell. There was also testimony to the contrary. Judge Hand has discussed the testimony very fully and carefully, he saw and heard the witnesses, and his finding on the controverted questions of fact' should not be set aside. Indeed, upon the printed record of the testimony we think his conclusion is in accord with the fair preponderance of proof.

Decree affirmed, with interest and costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

The cause was tried in court, and the only substantial question is one of fact. There was testimony — abundant testimony — which, if credited, would establish the proposition that the [775]*775scow struck, not on the old riprap', which was In the channel before Fox began his work, but on a- fragment of stone or concrete which he had blasted off the pier and had not removed from the channel into which it fell. There was also testimony to the contrary. Judge Hand has discussed the testimony very fully and carefully, he saw and heard the witnesses, and his finding on the controverted questions of fact' should not be set aside. Indeed, upon the printed record of the testimony we think his conclusion is in accord with the fair preponderance of proof.

Decree affirmed, with interest and costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 F. 774, 131 C.C.A. 186, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 1181, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bouker-contracting-co-v-fox-ca2-1914.