Verdon v. Styffe

Second Circuit

Verdon v. Styffe

61 F. 516, 9 C.C.A. 600, 1894 U.S. App. LEXIS 2201

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedApril 18, 1894

DocketNo. 97

StatusPublished

This text of 61 F. 516 (Verdon v. Styffe) 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

Verdon v. Styffe, 61 F. 516, 9 C.C.A. 600, 1894 U.S. App. LEXIS 2201 (2d Cir. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We are entirely satisfied with the conclusions of the district judge that the libelant was injured by the negligence of those in charge of the tug in permitting her to go altead, without notice to the libelant, while the libelant was attempting to fasten the tug’s hawser in a new location upon Ms own boat, at the request of those in charge of the tug; We are less satisfied with the conclusions of the district judge that the libelant was also negligent. As, however, the libelant, has not appealed from the decree dividing the damages sustained by Mm, we can only affirm the decree. The merits of the controversy depend entirely upon the credibility of the witnesses who were examined in the presence of the district judge. We think the appeal was entirely mi justifiable, and that the cause is a proper one for allowing 1o the appellee, in addition to interest, damages for delay to the extent of 30 pm* cent, upon the amount of Ms recovery, with costs of tins court and of the district court.

The judgment is affirmed, with directions to the district court to decree accordingly.

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

PER CURIAM.

We are entirely satisfied with the conclusions of the district judge that the libelant was injured by the negligence of those in charge of the tug in permitting her to go altead, without notice to the libelant, while the libelant was attempting to fasten the tug’s hawser in a new location upon Ms own boat, at the request of those in charge of the tug; We are less satisfied with the conclusions of the district judge that the libelant was also negligent. As, however, the libelant, has not appealed from the decree dividing the damages sustained by Mm, we can only affirm the decree. The merits of the controversy depend entirely upon the credibility of the witnesses who were examined in the presence of the district judge. We think the appeal was entirely mi justifiable, and that the cause is a proper one for allowing 1o the appellee, in addition to interest, damages for delay to the extent of 30 pm* cent, upon the amount of Ms recovery, with costs of tins court and of the district court.

The judgment is affirmed, with directions to the district court to decree accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 F. 516, 9 C.C.A. 600, 1894 U.S. App. LEXIS 2201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/verdon-v-styffe-ca2-1894.