Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

127 F. 554

Docket No. 41.

The Manitou

Second Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided December 11, 1903.)

Second Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1903-12-11

This cause comes here upon appeal from a decree of the District Court (ii6 Fed. 6o), by which the steamer Manitou was compelled to pay for cargo damaged by steam which entered cargo compartments through pipes of the fire-extinguishing apparatus.

2 counsel of record

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1903-12-11

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1933

5 federal appellate ·

301903191019201930decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶11. Shipping — Damage to Cargo — Unseaworthiness.

¶2In a suit against a steamship to recover for damage to cargo during a voyage from Eondon to New York, caused by the escape of steam through partially open valves, the finding of the trial court that the evidence on behalf of the claimant was insufficient to show that the valves were closed when the steamer, sailed affirmed.

¶3¶1. Implied warranty of seaworthiness, see note to The Carib Prince, 15 O. O. A. 388.

¶4Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.

¶5This cause comes here upon appeal from a decree of the District Court (ii6 Fed. 6o), by which the steamer Manitou was compelled to pay for cargo damaged by steam which entered cargo compartments through pipes of the fire-extinguishing apparatus.

¶6J. Parker Kirlin, for appellant.

¶7W. Mynderse, for appellee.

¶8Before DACOMBE, TOWNSEND, and COXE, Circuit Judges.

¶9PER CURIAM.

¶10We do not think it. necessary to add anything to the opinion of the District Judge, concurring with him in the conclu,*555sion that the claimant has not satisfactorily shown that the valves through which the steam made its way were closed when the steamer sailed. The damages have been calculated in accordance with the rule laid down by this court in The Styria, toi Fed. 728, 41 C. C. A. 639. We see no reason to modify the views-therein expressed.

¶11The decree is affirmed, with interest and costs.

/127/f1d/554 · .json · Public domain