U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1914

Lower Coast Transp. Co. v. Gulf Refining Co.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided February 3, 1914

211 F. 336; 128 C.C.A. 15; 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 1748

Counsel

John D. Grace, of New Orleans, La., for appellant., J. L. Warren Woodville and John A. Woodv-ille, both of New Orleans, La., for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

The Bud III (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 1918)
The John L. Lawrence (District Court, E.D. North Carolina 1916)
Farrell Ocean Services, Inc. v. United States (1st Cir. 1982)
The Denelfred (District Court, E.D. Michigan 1932)
The Golden Gate (9th Cir. 1931)
Knutsen v. Associated Oil Co. (9th Cir. 1931)

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.

The case shows that the Grover Cleveland was owned by the Lower Coast Transportation Company, a corporation created under the laws of Mississippi and domiciled at Bay St. Louis in that state, and that that corporation entered into a combination or partnership with the owners of the El Rito, by which the two. vessels, the Grover Cleveland and El Rito, were to be operated by a corporation known as the Lower Coast Merchants’ & Growers’ Transportation Company, the earnings to be divided between the three corporations ; and under this arrangement the Grover Cleveland was turned over to and was operated by the Lower Coast Merchants’ & Growers’ Transportation Company, which company contracted with the Gulf Refining Company of Louisiana for necessary fuel oil to operate the Grover Cleveland, and the oil furnished under this contract is the basis of the intervening libel of the Gulf Refining Company.

The District Court found that the Gulf Refining Company had alien on the Grover Cleveland for the fuel thus furnished; and in this we concur. The fact that bills were made out to other parties connected with the management of the boat does not destroy the maritime-lien for supplies furnished in a foreign port. And see chapter 373. 36 Stat. 604. Affirmed.

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