U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1952

United States v. United States Lines Co. The William J. Riddle. The American Farmer

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Decided December 19, 1952 · Swan, Chase, Clark

200 F.2d 608; 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 2342 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Myles J. Lane, U. S. Atty., New York City, Edward L. Smith and Ruth Kearney, Attorneys, Department of Justice, New York City, of counsel, for appellant., Kirlin Campbell & Keating, New York City, Robert S. Erskine and John F. Gerity, New York City of counsel, for United States Lines Co., appellee., Bigham, Englar, Jones & Houston, New York City, Charles A. Van Hagen, Jr., New York City, of counsel, for Federal Ins. Co., appellee., Dow & Symmers, New York City, William G. Symmers and William Warner, New York City, of counsel, for Royal Ins. Co., Ltd., et al., appellees.

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision. The 6 that cite it most often are listed here.

Derek Lamb v. Globe Seaways, Inc., and Maritime Overseas Corporation (2d Cir. 1975)
Petition of Marina Mercante Nicaraguense, SA (District Court, S.D. New York 1965)
United States v. S.S. Soya Atlantic (District Court, D. Maryland 1963)
Hellenic Lines Ltd. v. S.S. Union Metropole (District Court, E.D. Virginia 1962)
Dwyer Oil Transport Co. v. The Tug Edna M. Matton (2d Cir. 1958)
Davis v. The U. S. Oil Screw Dewey (District Court, E.D. North Carolina 1956)

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal raises solely questions of fact. The appellant contends that when the vessels sighted each other their headings were such as to call for a starboard to starboard passing. The court discredited the witnesses of the appellant and believed those of the appellee who said the lights were red to red. We cannot say the trial court’s findings of fact on this issue are clearly erroneous. His opinion is reported in The William J. Riddle, 102 F.Supp. 884. It discusses all of the contentions now renewed on the appeal. Nothing is to be gained by a repetition of the discussion. The only possible doubt is whether the American Farmer’s statutory fault in failing to signal when she turned five degrees to her right is enough to fasten contributory fault upon her. Judge Kaufman found that it could not have contributed to the collision. We think he was right. See National Bulk Carriers v. *609 United States, 2 Cir., 183 F.2d 405, 409, certiorari denied Burns S. S. Co. v. National Bulk Carries, 340 U.S. 865, 71 S.Ct. 89, 95 L.Ed. 681. The decree is affirmed on the opinion below.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.