Dixon v. The Surrey

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

Dixon v. The Surrey

40 F. 90, 1889 U.S. App. LEXIS 2844

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

DecidedJanuary 2, 1889

StatusPublished

This text of 40 F. 90 (Dixon v. The Surrey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dixon v. The Surrey, 40 F. 90, 1889 U.S. App. LEXIS 2844 (circtsdny 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

La combe, J.,

(after stating the facts as above.") The additional evidence introduced in this court clearly shows that the fruit was discharged, not on Monday, January 26th, as the learned district judge assumed, but on Saturday, the 24th. It is also clear from the testimony that it -was not until well into the afternoon on Monday that the weather became such as to expose the goods to destruction from frost; and that, if removed any time before 4 p. m. of that day, they would have been found uninjured. I am unable, therefore, to concur in the conclusion that the goods were landed at an improper place or time, nor so as negligently to expose them to obvious peril of destruction. The decree of the district court is reversed, and judgment ordered for the ship on both original and cross libel, with costs of both courts.

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

La combe, J.,

(after stating the facts as above.") The additional evidence introduced in this court clearly shows that the fruit was discharged, not on Monday, January 26th, as the learned district judge assumed, but on Saturday, the 24th. It is also clear from the testimony that it -was not until well into the afternoon on Monday that the weather became such as to expose the goods to destruction from frost; and that, if removed any time before 4 p. m. of that day, they would have been found uninjured. I am unable, therefore, to concur in the conclusion that the goods were landed at an improper place or time, nor so as negligently to expose them to obvious peril of destruction. The decree of the district court is reversed, and judgment ordered for the ship on both original and cross libel, with costs of both courts.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 F. 90, 1889 U.S. App. LEXIS 2844, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dixon-v-the-surrey-circtsdny-1889.