The John H. Starin
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.
PER CURIAM.
The witnesses have been recalled and cross-examined on matters touching which objections to their testifying were sustained in the District Court. Additional testimony has also been taken. The cross-examination has developed nothing of importance. Upon the whole record we cannot see that “privity or knowledge” by the owner is at all made out. Even if a thorough inspection before the accident might have disclosed a condition which called for atténtion, the petitioner is liable only for his personal negligence. He provided a shipyard for the repair of his floating property, and employed competent agents to inspect and maintain it. Their negligence is not his personal negligence. Quinlan v. Pew, 56 Fed. 113 , 5 C. C. A. 438 ; The Tommy, 151 Fed. 570 , 81 C. C. A. 50 .
The decree is affirmed, with costs.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 0 cases
No case in this database cites this case.