Cain v. Barge P. R. R. No. 226

Second Circuit

Cain v. Barge P. R. R. No. 226

15 F.2d 1017, 1926 U.S. App. LEXIS 3114, 1927 A.M.C. 208

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedNovember 1, 1926

DocketNo. 59

StatusPublished

This text of 15 F.2d 1017 (Cain v. Barge P. R. R. No. 226) 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

Cain v. Barge P. R. R. No. 226, 15 F.2d 1017, 1926 U.S. App. LEXIS 3114, 1927 A.M.C. 208 (2d Cir. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

PEE CUEIAM.

No act by the No. 226, and no act or omission by her crew, constituted a maritime tort. Therefore no lien existed. We are satisfied that this whole disaster was the result of force majeure; i. e., a sudden storm of magnitude.

Decree reversed, with costs, and cause remanded to the District Court, with directions to dismiss the libel and make such disposition of costs as to it seems good.

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

PEE CUEIAM.

No act by the No. 226, and no act or omission by her crew, constituted a maritime tort. Therefore no lien existed. We are satisfied that this whole disaster was the result of force majeure; i. e., a sudden storm of magnitude.

Decree reversed, with costs, and cause remanded to the District Court, with directions to dismiss the libel and make such disposition of costs as to it seems good.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 F.2d 1017, 1926 U.S. App. LEXIS 3114, 1927 A.M.C. 208, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cain-v-barge-p-r-r-no-226-ca2-1926.