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

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 15, 1910

DocketNo. 1,979

StatusPublished

This text of 176 F. 1022 (James Gibbony & Co. v. Engblom) 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

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 F. 1022, 100 C.C.A. 666, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 4325, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-gibbony-co-v-engblom-ca5-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack