U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1964

The President of India, Acting by and Through the Director of the India Supply Mission v. West Coast Steamship Company, an Oregon Corporation

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided May 4, 1964 · Hamley, Hamlin, Koelsch, Per Curiam

327 F.2d 638 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Koerner, Young, McColloch & Dezen-dorf, and John Gordon Gearin, Portland, Or., and 0. Taft Nelson, New York City, for appellant., Mautz, Souther, Spaulding, Kinsey & Williamson, Kenneth E. Roberts and James H. Bruce, Portland, Or., for ap-pellee.

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

Grace Line Inc. v. Grace Line Inc. (2d Cir. 1975)
Imperial Commodities Corp. v. Grace Line Inc. (2d Cir. 1975)
Georgia-Pacific Corporation v. Motorship Marilyn (District Court, E.D. Virginia 1971)
Director General of India Supply Mission Ex Rel. President of the Union of India v. S.S. Janet Quinn (District Court, S.D. New York 1971)
John Penny & Sons, Ltd. v. M/V Swivel (District Court, D. Massachusetts 1967)

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.

The President of the Republic of India, acting by and through the Director of the India Supply Mission in the United States, appellant herein, brought a libel in admiralty against West Coast Steamship Company, appellee herein, as owner of the S.S. Portland Trader, for damage to cargo which occurred when the vessel ran aground on Tubbataha Reef in the Sulu Sea, Republic of the Philippines, January 5, 1961. The primary contention of libelant was that the vessel was unseaworthy by reason of its not being equipped with either radar or loran. 1 District Judge John F. Kilkenny, in a detailed opinion, 213 F.Supp. 352 (D.Or. 1962), found that the vessel was *639 seaworthy and that the sole cause of the accident was negligent navigation by the master. We think that Judge Kilkenny in his opinion correctly set forth the salient facts, analyzed the issues, and applied the law, and accordingly adopt that opinion as our own.

Judgment affirmed.

. Libellant also contended that respondent was negligent in its instructions to the master after it received notification of the accident.

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