The W. H. Flannery

Second Circuit

The W. H. Flannery

249 F. 349, 161 C.C.A. 357, 1918 U.S. App. LEXIS 2219

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided January 16, 1918·No. No. 56·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The question which this case presents involves no question of law. The District Judge, who saw and heard the witnesses, has found as a fact that the collision was occasioned by the Flannery’s failure to comply with the signal given by the Beard and which the Flannery had accepted. This court is reluctant to disturb a conclusion of fact reached by a trial judge, who had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses.

Decree affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The question which this case presents involves no question of law. The District Judge, who saw and heard the witnesses, has found as a fact that the collision was occasioned by the Flannery’s failure to comply with the signal given by the Beard and which the Flannery had accepted. This court is reluctant to disturb a conclusion of fact reached by a trial judge, who had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses.

Decree affirmed.

The W. H. Flannery, 249 F. 349, 161 C.C.A. 357, 1918 U.S. App. LEXIS 2219 (2d Cir. 1918).

Pincite

249 F. 349 (The W. H. Flannery) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related