Hudson v. The Iodine
This text of 66 F. 158 (Hudson v. The Iodine) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
This case arises out of the , facts stated in the suit by Neal v. The Elena G., 61 Fed. 519. A repetition of the statement made in that case is unnecessary.
It is not denied that the libelant rendered salvage services, and should be compensated accordingly.
The only dispute respects the amount justly due. After full consideration of all the circumstances I believe the payment of §1,000 will be a fair compensation. The Iodine and the bark Munch were lying side by side, and were removed together. For the services to the latter §500 were tendered and received.
The former is a much larger vessel, and was somewhat differently situated. I think double the sum paid by the Munch is sufficient for the services rendered the Iodine; and a decree may be prepared accordingly, with costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
66 F. 158, 1895 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hudson-v-the-iodine-paed-1895.