The Kate Cann
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
BiíAtchfqRD, G. J.
I am entirely satisfied with the conclusions arrived at by the district judge in this case, and with the reason assigned by him therefor in his decision. The case is one where the damage sued for was caused by the wrongful neglect, upon navigable water, of a maritime duty owing to the libellant by the owners of the vessel, and arising out of the employment of the vessel as a carrier of cargo, and for which the vessel herself is liable. The facts and the law are carefully examined by the district judge, and the distinc *720 tion between the present case and The Germania, 9 Ben. 356 , is satisfactorily shown. ■_ . .
There "must be a decree for the libellant for $3,000, with interest from November 8, 188Ó, and his costs taxed in the district court at $325.30, and his costs in this court to be taxed.
See 2 Fed. Rep. 241.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 6 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.