George W. Whiteman v. Brown & Root Marine Operators, Inc.

Fifth Circuit

George W. Whiteman v. Brown & Root Marine Operators, Inc.

353 F.2d 287, 1966 A.M.C. 648

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 3, 1965

Docket21374_1

StatusPublished

This text of 353 F.2d 287 (George W. Whiteman v. Brown & Root Marine Operators, Inc.) 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 v. Brown & Root Marine Operators, Inc., 353 F.2d 287, 1966 A.M.C. 648 (5th Cir. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, George M. Whiteman, by an oral agreement chartered a barge known as the Champion to the appellee, Brown & Root Marine Operators, Inc. Whiteman brought a libel against Brown & Root claiming that there was a failure to return the barge in the same condition as when received and that the cost of restoration to the original condition would be $60,000. Brown & Root contended that it had been agreed that it would be permitted to make alterations to the barge and that it could be redelivered to Whiteman in its altered condition. Thus there was presented to the district court a question as to the terms of the charter agreement. This question was a question of fact. The district court found that the agreement was as claimed by Brown & Root. The findings of the trial court, sitting without a jury in admiralty, will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly erroneous. Caribbean Federation Lines v. Dahl, 5th Cir. 1963, 315 F.2d 370, cert. den. 375 U.S. 831, 84 S.Ct. 76, 11 L.Ed. 2d 62. The findings here made by the district court are amply supported by evidence and are not clearly erroneous. It follows that the judgment of the district court must be, and it is hereby

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, George M. Whiteman, by an oral agreement chartered a barge known as the Champion to the appellee, Brown & Root Marine Operators, Inc. Whiteman brought a libel against Brown & Root claiming that there was a failure to return the barge in the same condition as when received and that the cost of restoration to the original condition would be $60,000. Brown & Root contended that it had been agreed that it would be permitted to make alterations to the barge and that it could be redelivered to Whiteman in its altered condition. Thus there was presented to the district court a question as to the terms of the charter agreement. This question was a question of fact. The district court found that the agreement was as claimed by Brown & Root. The findings of the trial court, sitting without a jury in admiralty, will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly erroneous. Caribbean Federation Lines v. Dahl, 5th Cir. 1963, 315 F.2d 370, cert. den. 375 U.S. 831, 84 S.Ct. 76, 11 L.Ed. 2d 62. The findings here made by the district court are amply supported by evidence and are not clearly erroneous. It follows that the judgment of the district court must be, and it is hereby

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

353 F.2d 287, 1966 A.M.C. 648, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/george-w-whiteman-v-brown-root-marine-operators-inc-ca5-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack