U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 1949

United States v. Dump Scows No. 116, No. 120 & No. 122

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Decided June 27, 1949

175 F.2d 556; 1949 A.M.C. 2040; 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 3708 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

S. B. Fortenbaugh, Jr., Philadelphia, Pa. (John O. Platt, Jr., Benjamin F. Stahl, Jr., Clark, Brown, McCown, Fortenbaugh & Young, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellants Dump Scows Nos. 116, 120 and 122 and others., Joseph W. Henderson, Philadelphia, Pa. (Rawle & Henderson, Philadelphia Pa., Platow & Lyon, New York City, John A. Lyon, Edward F. Platow, New York City, on the brief), for appellants Tug James N. Knipe and another., Max Taylor; Washington, D. C. (Gerald A. Gleeson, United States Attorney, on the brief), for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision. The 10 that cite it most often are listed here.

Pasco Marketing, Inc., a Corporation v. Taylor Towing Service, Inc., a Corp., and Security Barge Line, Inc., a Corp. (8th Cir. 1977)
No. 15029 (5th Cir. 1955)
Koch-Ellis Marine Contractors, Inc. v. Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans (5th Cir. 1955)
John I. Hay Co. v. the Allen B. Wood (United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana 1954)
Sewerage and Water Board v. the Joe L. Hill (United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana 1954)
Lancaster v. Ohio River Co. (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1978)
Monsanto Co. v. Edwards Towing Corp. (District Court, E.D. Missouri 1969)
Sun Oil Company v. SS GEORGEL (District Court, S.D. New York 1965)
In re Kinsman Transit Co. (2d Cir. 1964)
Hebert v. Barge ABL-22 (United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana 1963)

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

PER CURIAM.

We have given careful consideration to the questions presented by the appeals in the instant cases and have examined the authorities cited by the parties. Since the cases are in admiralty our consideration is of course de novo. Our conclusions, however, are the same as those expressed by Judge McGranery in his clear opinion, 77 F.Supp. 264, sub. nom. The Norwich Victory.

Accordingly the decree of the court below will be affirmed in all respects.

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