Rose Brick Co. The Mascot

Second Circuit

Rose Brick Co. The Mascot

57 F. 512, 6 C.C.A. 465, 1893 U.S. App. LEXIS 2190

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedAugust 1, 1893

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 57 F. 512 (Rose Brick Co. The Mascot) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 F. 512, 6 C.C.A. 465, 1893 U.S. App. LEXIS 2190, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rose-brick-co-the-mascot-ca2-1893.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack