James Gibbony & Co. v. Engblom

Fifth Circuit

James Gibbony & Co. v. Engblom

176 F. 1022, 100 C.C.A. 666, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 4325

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided March 15, 1910·No. No. 1,979·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this case it is, difficult to see how the Russian ship Sylfid, which, at the instance of and for the benefit of the libelants, was taken possession of by the harbor master and moved from its dock, can be held liable to the libelants for any collision which resulted from or followed such moving; and we agree with the trial judge that there was not sufficient evidence to establish negligence or fault against the pilot. The decree of the District Court (169 Fed. 995) is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this case it is, difficult to see how the Russian ship Sylfid, which, at the instance of and for the benefit of the libelants, was taken possession of by the harbor master and moved from its dock, can be held liable to the libelants for any collision which resulted from or followed such moving; and we agree with the trial judge that there was not sufficient evidence to establish negligence or fault against the pilot. The decree of the District Court (169 Fed. 995) is affirmed.

James Gibbony & Co. v. Engblom, 176 F. 1022, 100 C.C.A. 666, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 4325 (5th Cir. 1910).

Pincite

176 F. 1022 (James Gibbony & Co. v. Engblom) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related