New York, O. & W. RY. CO. v. Cornell Steamboat Co.
193 F. 380, 113 C.C.A. 306, 1911 U.S. App. LEXIS 4786
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided December 11, 1911·No. No. 30·Published·Cited by 9 cases
Opinion
We agree with Judlge Hough for the reasons given by him that the respondent was solely at fault, and this whether the tow was hanging from Pier 1 straight down the river, as he found, or was swung in by the freshet current toward Pier A, as the respondent contended. It was not in a slip in either case but in waters which the fire boat had a right to use.
Decree affirmed, with interest and costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
New York, O. & W. RY. CO. v. Cornell Steamboat Co., 193 F. 380, 113 C.C.A. 306, 1911 U.S. App. LEXIS 4786 (2d Cir. 1911).
193 F. 380 (New York, O. & W. RY. CO. v. Cornell Steamboat Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Willis v. Tugs Tramp & Mars
216 F. Supp. 901 (E.D. Virginia, 1962)
The Socony No. 9
74 F.2d 233 (Second Circuit, 1934)
Derby v. City of New York
56 F.2d 756 (Second Circuit, 1932)
Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Erie R. Co.
40 F.2d 420 (Second Circuit, 1930)
The Port Johnson Towing Co. No. 7
229 F. 267 (E.D. New York, 1915)
The Jersey Central
221 F. 625 (Second Circuit, 1915)
The Jersey Central
215 F. 235 (E.D. New York, 1914)
The Express
212 F. 672 (Second Circuit, 1914)
Wright & Cobb Lighterage Co. v. New England Navigation Co.
204 F. 762 (Second Circuit, 1913)