Fountain v. Sawyer

Fifth Circuit

Fountain v. Sawyer

176 F. 92, 99 C.C.A. 612, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 4230

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 18, 1910

DocketNo. 1,912

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 176 F. 92 (Fountain v. Sawyer) 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

Fountain v. Sawyer, 176 F. 92, 99 C.C.A. 612, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 4230 (5th Cir. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The services rendered by the libelants in the court below were unquestionably salvage services, and the only question before this court is as to the amount of salvage compensation.

The proper amount to allow is a matter of opinion, based upon the evidence as to the facts and circumstances surrounding the services, and the rule on appeal is that the amount allowed by the lower court should not be reduced, unless some important error has been committed, such as the violation of just principles, or clear and palpable mistake, or gross overallowance. See The Sybil, 4 Wheat. 98, 4 L. Ed. 522; The Camanche, 8 Wall. 448, 19 L. Ed. 397; The Connemara, 108 U. S. 359, 2 Sup. Ct. 754, 27 L. Ed. 751. In this case we find no important error, no violation of just principles, nor clear mistake, nor gross overallowance.

The judgment of the District Court is therefore affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The services rendered by the libelants in the court below were unquestionably salvage services, and the only question before this court is as to the amount of salvage compensation.

The proper amount to allow is a matter of opinion, based upon the evidence as to the facts and circumstances surrounding the services, and the rule on appeal is that the amount allowed by the lower court should not be reduced, unless some important error has been committed, such as the violation of just principles, or clear and palpable mistake, or gross overallowance. See The Sybil, 4 Wheat. 98, 4 L. Ed. 522; The Camanche, 8 Wall. 448, 19 L. Ed. 397; The Connemara, 108 U. S. 359, 2 Sup. Ct. 754, 27 L. Ed. 751. In this case we find no important error, no violation of just principles, nor clear mistake, nor gross overallowance.

The judgment of the District Court is therefore affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 F. 92, 99 C.C.A. 612, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 4230, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fountain-v-sawyer-ca5-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack