Conners Marine Co. v. Northwestern Fire & Marine Ins.
CONNERS MARINE CO. v. NORTHWESTERN FIRE & MARINE INS. CO.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
KNOX, District Judge.
The motion to dismiss the complaint for its failure to state a cause of action must he sustained. In my opinion, pontoons cannot properly be included in the category either of hulls and barges, or of hulls and cargoes. A pontoon falls within an entirely different designation. Although water borne, it is quite distinct from a hull, barge, or cargo, in both functions and reality. Furthermore, as I read the policy of insurance, it does not cover the loss which came to plaintiff as a result of a towage contract. Towage is not included within the liability of the assured “as owners, managing owners, operatives and/or operating agents, charterers, carriers, warehousemen, stevedores, wharfingers, forwarders, or freighters as imposed by law.” Each of the enumerated capacities is without the inclusiveness of a tow-age contract.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.