Carondelet Canal & Navigation Co. v. Demourelle

Fifth Circuit

Carondelet Canal & Navigation Co. v. Demourelle

176 F. 1022, 100 C.C.A. 664, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 4322

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 12, 1910

DocketNo. 1,952

StatusPublished

This text of 176 F. 1022 (Carondelet Canal & Navigation Co. v. Demourelle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carondelet Canal & Navigation Co. v. Demourelle, 176 F. 1022, 100 C.C.A. 664, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 4322 (5th Cir. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In affirming the judgment of this case, we filed no written, opinion, because the .points involved were well known to the parties, and we were not called on to make a declaration of law for other than this particular ease, which case shows that there was neither request nor opportunity to pay tolls in the' canal until the incoming vessel should-reach the Old.Basin, and rule No. 83, relied upon by the appellants, was in effect an invitation to incoming sailing vessels to come up to the harbor under sail, and there, was.negligently.moored in the canal a crib of logs, which to some extent obstructed navigation, and near by there was a stump, very near to the channel, four feet under water, upon which the Lolita struck and re--ceived her damages.. The damages allowed in the District Court, though assigned as error, did not appear to be contested on the hearing, and. they, were substantially. proved in the. record. The petition for rehearing is denied.

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

PER CURIAM.

In affirming the judgment of this case, we filed no written, opinion, because the .points involved were well known to the parties, and we were not called on to make a declaration of law for other than this particular ease, which case shows that there was neither request nor opportunity to pay tolls in the' canal until the incoming vessel should-reach the Old.Basin, and rule No. 83, relied upon by the appellants, was in effect an invitation to incoming sailing vessels to come up to the harbor under sail, and there, was.negligently.moored in the canal a crib of logs, which to some extent obstructed navigation, and near by there was a stump, very near to the channel, four feet under water, upon which the Lolita struck and re--ceived her damages.. The damages allowed in the District Court, though assigned as error, did not appear to be contested on the hearing, and. they, were substantially. proved in the. record. The petition for rehearing is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 F. 1022, 100 C.C.A. 664, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 4322, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carondelet-canal-navigation-co-v-demourelle-ca5-1910.