The John H. Starin

196 F. 1006, 115 C.C.A. 671, 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1575
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in The John H. Starin. Read the opinion of the Court — 191 F. 800
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided June 14, 1912·No. No. 22·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The witnesses have been recalled and cross-examined on matters touching which objections to their testifying were sustained in the District Court. Additional testimony has also been taken. The cross-examination has developed nothing of importance. Upon the whole record we cannot see that “privity or knowledge” by the owner is at all made out. Even if a thorough inspection before the accident might have disclosed a condition which called for atténtion, the petitioner is liable only for his personal negligence. He provided a shipyard for the repair of his floating property, and employed competent agents to inspect and maintain it. Their negligence is not his personal negligence. Quinlan v. Pew, 56 Fed. 113, 5 C. C. A. 438; The Tommy, 151 Fed. 570, 81 C. C. A. 50.

The decree is affirmed, with costs.

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

The John H. Starin, 196 F. 1006, 115 C.C.A. 671, 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1575 (2d Cir. 1912).

196 F. 1006 (The John H. Starin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

The Tommy
151 F. 570 (Second Circuit, 1907)
Quinlan v. Pew
56 F. 111 (First Circuit, 1893)