TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Frederick Cone & Co. v. the Tai Shan

Frederick H. Cone & Co., Inc., Libellants-Appellants v. The Tai Shan, Her Engines, Etc., the Wilhelm Wilhelmsen, N. A. A. L., Wilhelmsen's D/s A/s, the Tonsberg, the Tankfart I, the Tankfart Iv, the Tankfart V, and the Tankfart Vi, Claimants-Respondents-Appellees

Frederick Cone & Co. v. the Tai Shan, 218 F.2d 822 (2d Cir. 1955)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
January 25, 1955
Docket
No. 23228
Citations
218 F.2d 822

Opinion

218 F.2d 822

FREDERICK H. CONE & CO., Inc., et al., Libellants-Appellants, v. THE TAI SHAN, her engines, etc., THE WILHELM WILHELMSEN, N. A. A. L., Wilhelmsen's D/S A/S, THE TONSBERG, THE TANKFART I, THE TANKFART IV, THE TANKFART V, and THE TANKFART VI, Claimants-Respondents-Appellees.

No. 148.

Docket 23228.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued January 12, 13, 1955.

Decided January 25, 1955.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York; Edward J. Dimock, Judge.

Libellants, Frederick H. Cone & Co., Inc., et al., appeal from a judgment below which held that their cargo loss due to fire on the motor vessel Tai Shan was not recoverable, since the vessel's deviation from its scheduled course was neither unreasonable nor the proximate cause of their loss. Claimants, m/v Tai Shan et al., assign error in the finding that there was deviation.

Henry N. Longley, New York City (Bigham, Englar, Jones & Houston and F. Herbert Prem, New York City, on the brief), for libellants-appellants.

Charles S. Haight, New York City (Haight, Deming, Gardner, Poor & Havens and Richard G. Ashworth, New York City, on the brief), for claimants respondents-appellees.

Before CLARK, Chief Judge, and FRANK and HINCKS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

1

Affirmed on the opinion of District Judge Dimock, Haroco Co., Inc., v. The Tai Shan, D.C., 111 F.Supp. 638 , 1953 A.M.C. 887 .

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1968: 11986: 119682026peak 1968 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. American Metal Company v. M/V BELLEVILLE284 F. Supp. 1002 (S.D.N.Y. 1968)
  2. O'Connell Machinery Co. v. M.V. "Americana"797 F.2d 1130 (2d Cir. 1986)

Most recent

  1. O'Connell Machinery Co. v. M.V. "Americana"797 F.2d 1130 (2d Cir. 1986)
  2. American Metal Company v. M/V BELLEVILLE284 F. Supp. 1002 (S.D.N.Y. 1968)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Haroco Co. v. the Tai Shan, 111 F. Supp. 638 (S.D.N.Y. 1953) 8

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list