U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1924

Jacksonville Forwarding Co. v. Oneida Navigation Co.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided January 8, 1924 · Walker

296 F. 700; 1924 U.S. App. LEXIS 3407

Counsel

George C. Bedell, of Jacksonville, Fla., for appellant., Wm. E. Kay, Thos. B. Adams, Reuben Ragland, and E. J. I/Engle, all of Jacksonville, Fla. (Kay, Adams & Ragland, of Jacksonville, Fla., Barry, Wainwright, Thacher & Symmers, of New York City, E. J. L’Engle, Walter F. Rogers, and J. W. Shands, all of Jacksonville, Fla., and Bigham, Englar & Jones, of New York City, on the brief), for appellees.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Beach Salvage Corp. of Florida v. the Shrimp Boats Cap't. Tom (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 1961)

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

WALKER, Circuit Judge.

The decree appealed from is complained of on the ground that the amount thereby awarded to the appellant for a salvage service was inadequate. The facts of the case are stated in the opinion rendered by the District Judge. 288 Fed. 209. It is not claimed that that statement is incorrect or inadequate in any material respect. The opinion indicates that due consideration was given to all circumstances having a bearing on the question of the amount to be awarded for the salvage service found to have been rendered. The rule governing an appellate court in passing on the question of the propriety of the amount awarded by a trial court for a salvage service is well settled and familiar. This court recently has had occasion to restate and apply that rule. The Santa Rita ( C. C. A.) 281 Fed. 760. The result of applying that rule to this case is the conclusion that the *701decree appealed from is not subject to be reversed on the ground urged. It has not been made to appear that the amount awarded was grossly inadequate, or that the action of the court in fixing that amount was influenced by any mistake of fact or error of law.

The decree is affirmed.

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