George W. Whiteman Towing Inc., and Tug H. C. Whiteman, Her Engines, Tackle, Apparel, Etc. v. Humble Oil & Refining Company

Fifth Circuit

George W. Whiteman Towing Inc., and Tug H. C. Whiteman, Her Engines, Tackle, Apparel, Etc. v. Humble Oil & Refining Company

370 F.2d 558

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 16, 1966

Docket22674

StatusPublished

This text of 370 F.2d 558 (George W. Whiteman Towing Inc., and Tug H. C. Whiteman, Her Engines, Tackle, Apparel, Etc. v. Humble Oil & Refining Company) 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

George W. Whiteman Towing Inc., and Tug H. C. Whiteman, Her Engines, Tackle, Apparel, Etc. v. Humble Oil & Refining Company, 370 F.2d 558 (5th Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant complains of the judgment of the trial court which found that the Master of the tug H. C. Whiteman was in charge of the tow and was responsible for the grounding' of the Humble barge DB-1 and that the Humble tug AC-5 was free of fault. By pretrial stipulation the parties agreed that the barge was damaged by the negligent operation of one or both of the tug boats which were towing it down the Mississippi River. The amount of damages was also stipulated. The appellant owned one of the tugs and the appellee the other.

The record discloses that the trial court reached its conclusions after considering all of the issues, the depositions of witnesses and the testimony of a number of witnesses who appeared in court. Our review of the record convinces us that the trial court reached the correct conclusion.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant complains of the judgment of the trial court which found that the Master of the tug H. C. Whiteman was in charge of the tow and was responsible for the grounding' of the Humble barge DB-1 and that the Humble tug AC-5 was free of fault. By pretrial stipulation the parties agreed that the barge was damaged by the negligent operation of one or both of the tug boats which were towing it down the Mississippi River. The amount of damages was also stipulated. The appellant owned one of the tugs and the appellee the other.

The record discloses that the trial court reached its conclusions after considering all of the issues, the depositions of witnesses and the testimony of a number of witnesses who appeared in court. Our review of the record convinces us that the trial court reached the correct conclusion.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

370 F.2d 558, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/george-w-whiteman-towing-inc-and-tug-h-c-whiteman-her-engines-ca5-1966.