Ulster Oil Transportation Corp. v. The Tug H. A. Meldrum

Second Circuit

Ulster Oil Transportation Corp. v. The Tug H. A. Meldrum

229 F.2d 568

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided January 25, 1956·No. No. 229, Docket 23407·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Judge Byers’ opinion and findings, D. C.E.D.N.Y., 122 F.Supp. 767, which are fully sustained in the record, demonstrate that no negligence can be charged to either towing or passing tug for the three-inch stone found in, the side bottom of libelant’s barge after it had rubbed along the bank of the New York State Barge Canal. We also find point •’n the judge’s remark that with so large [569]*569a barge in so small a channel “navigation in the Barge Canal is attended by certain obvious perils,” 122 F.Supp. 767, 769, apparent to the owners.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Judge Byers’ opinion and findings, D. C.E.D.N.Y., 122 F.Supp. 767, which are fully sustained in the record, demonstrate that no negligence can be charged to either towing or passing tug for the three-inch stone found in, the side bottom of libelant’s barge after it had rubbed along the bank of the New York State Barge Canal. We also find point •’n the judge’s remark that with so large [569]*569a barge in so small a channel “navigation in the Barge Canal is attended by certain obvious perils,” 122 F.Supp. 767, 769, apparent to the owners.

Affirmed.

Ulster Oil Transportation Corp. v. The Tug H. A. Meldrum, 229 F.2d 568 (2d Cir. 1956).

Pincite

229 F.2d 568 (Ulster Oil Transportation Corp. v. The Tug H. A. Meldrum) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related