Zubic v. Tranter Mfg. Co.

Third Circuit

Zubic v. Tranter Mfg. Co.

88 F.2d 959, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 3293, 1937 A.M.C. 613

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMarch 5, 1937

DocketNo. 6208

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 88 F.2d 959 (Zubic v. Tranter Mfg. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Zubic v. Tranter Mfg. Co., 88 F.2d 959, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 3293, 1937 A.M.C. 613 (3d Cir. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.

This admiralty case turns on the question of fact whether the contract between the parties was simply to furnish material for an installation designed by the vessel owner, or whether it was a contract by the libelant to design installation and furnish the material for such design. The court below found the former contention was the fact and entered a decree in favor of the materialman and against the appellant vessel.

On due consideration had, we find ourselves in accord with the court below. After negotiations, a letter embodying the contract was written by libelant addressed to Zubic, who owned the vessel, which strongly supports libelant’s contention that it agreed simply to furnish material, and the weight of the proof is to the same effect. The letter makes no mention of Zubic’s steamer; it makes no mention of design or installation, but speaks simply of material: “We are pleased to furnish you the following material,” “trusting we may be favored with your.order for this material”; it does not provide for installation and delivery is “f. o. b. our works.”

Without entering into the further contentions made, all of which have been duly considered, we affirm the decree below, but, in view of the very long delay of the parties in disposing of the case, and as a warning against such delays, we direct that all interest allowances in this case be reduced to 3 per cent. With such modification, the decree below is affirmed.

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

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.

This admiralty case turns on the question of fact whether the contract between the parties was simply to furnish material for an installation designed by the vessel owner, or whether it was a contract by the libelant to design installation and furnish the material for such design. The court below found the former contention was the fact and entered a decree in favor of the materialman and against the appellant vessel.

On due consideration had, we find ourselves in accord with the court below. After negotiations, a letter embodying the contract was written by libelant addressed to Zubic, who owned the vessel, which strongly supports libelant’s contention that it agreed simply to furnish material, and the weight of the proof is to the same effect. The letter makes no mention of Zubic’s steamer; it makes no mention of design or installation, but speaks simply of material: “We are pleased to furnish you the following material,” “trusting we may be favored with your.order for this material”; it does not provide for installation and delivery is “f. o. b. our works.”

Without entering into the further contentions made, all of which have been duly considered, we affirm the decree below, but, in view of the very long delay of the parties in disposing of the case, and as a warning against such delays, we direct that all interest allowances in this case be reduced to 3 per cent. With such modification, the decree below is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 F.2d 959, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 3293, 1937 A.M.C. 613, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zubic-v-tranter-mfg-co-ca3-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack