New York & Cuba Mail Steamship Co. v. The Express
Cases that cite this one
6 later published cases cite this decision.
- The Charles E. Matthews (2d Cir. 1909)
- Lauro v. United States (2d Cir. 1948)
- United States v. 125.71 Acres of Land in Loyalhanna Tp. (District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania 1944)
- State Ex Rel. Southern Real Estate & Financial Co. v. City of St. Louis (Mo. Ct. App. 1938)
- American Mail Line, Ltd. v. Skagit River Navigation & Trading Co. (9th Cir. 1937)
- The S. V. Luckenbach (2d Cir. 1912)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The party who appeals from a decree in his favor in a cause of collision is not entitled to interest on the original recovery pending the appeal. Interest, in such cases, is given for delay in satisfying a decree. The party wrho appeals puts it out of the power of the opposite party to pay the decree. The Rebecca Clyde, 12 Blatchf. 403; Hemmenway v. Fisher, 20 How. 260; The Blenheim, 18 Fed. 47.
The motion to amend the mandate is denied.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.