Rose Brick Co. The Mascot

57 F. 512, 6 C.C.A. 465, 1893 U.S. App. LEXIS 2190
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided August 1, 1893·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We are satisfied upon the evidence in the record that there was an obstruction in the canal, inside the buried rock, which was known to exist by those conversant with the condition of the channel, and which ought to have been known to those in charge of the tug. In towing the libelant’s canal boat upon an obstacle which competent and experienced pilots would have avoided, the tug was guilty of negligence.

The decree is affirmed, with interest and costs.

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

Rose Brick Co. The Mascot, 57 F. 512, 6 C.C.A. 465, 1893 U.S. App. LEXIS 2190 (2d Cir. 1893).

57 F. 512 (Rose Brick Co. The Mascot) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

The Nathan Hale
91 F. 682 (S.D. New York, 1898)
Petrie v. The S. W. Morris
59 F. 616 (S.D. New York, 1893)