People's Nav. Co. v. Toxey

269 F. 793, 1920 U.S. App. LEXIS 1917
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedNovember 4, 1920
DocketNos. 1833, 1834
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 269 F. 793 (People's Nav. Co. v. Toxey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People's Nav. Co. v. Toxey, 269 F. 793, 1920 U.S. App. LEXIS 1917 (4th Cir. 1920).

Opinion

WOODS, Circuit Judge.

[1] Section 4283 of the Revised Statutes provides:

“The liability of the owner of any vessel, for any embezzlement, loss, or destruction, by any person, of any property, goods, or merchandise, shipped or put on board of such vessel, or for any loss, damage, or injury by collision, oi- for any act, matter, or thing lost, damage, or forfeiture, done, occasioned, or incurred, without the privity, or knowledge of such owner or owners, shall in no case exceed the amount or value of the interest of such owner in such vessel, and her freight then pending.” Compiled Statutes, § 8021.

[794]*794We not only recognize, but are in full sympathy with, the numerous authorities holding that this act should be liberally construed in favor of shipowners, so as to encourage shipbuilding, and the employment of ships in commerce. Providence & New York Steamship Co. v. Hill Manufacturing Co., 109 U. S. 578, 3 Sup. Ct. 379, 617, 27 L. Ed. 1038; Butler v. Boston & Savannah Steamship Co., 130 U. S. 527, 9 Sup. Ct. 612, 32 L. Ed. 1017; Capitol Transportation Co. v. Cambria Steel Co., 249 U. S. 334, 39 Sup. Ct. 292, 63 L. Ed. 631. In this case the testimony is conflicting as to the cause of the explosion, the condition of the boilers of the vessel and the knowledge of the owners of the alleged unsafe condition of the boilers. On all of these vital issues, however, the conclusion of the District Court is supported by very strong evidence—so strong that we are unable to say that even the preponderance is against his conclusion.

It follows that the decree of the District Court must be affirmed. Analysis of the testimony would be of no value.

Affirmed.

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

Related

The Severance
152 F.2d 916 (Fourth Circuit, 1945)
The Silver Palm
94 F.2d 776 (Ninth Circuit, 1937)
Silver Line v. United States
94 F.2d 776 (Ninth Circuit, 1937)
In re Jacobson
52 F.2d 179 (S.D. Texas, 1931)
In re Wheeler
51 F.2d 374 (E.D. New York, 1931)
Paladini v. Flink
26 F.2d 21 (Ninth Circuit, 1928)
The Omar D. Conger
1 F.2d 732 (E.D. Michigan, 1924)
Pocomoke Guano Co. v. Eastern Transp. Co.
285 F. 7 (Fourth Circuit, 1922)
Maryland Transp. Co. v. Dempsey
279 F. 94 (Fourth Circuit, 1921)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
269 F. 793, 1920 U.S. App. LEXIS 1917, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peoples-nav-co-v-toxey-ca4-1920.