Hansen v. Emery

Second Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided March 15, 1912.)

Second Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1912-03-15

<p>Appeals from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently December 1924

2 counsel of record

Relies on The Diana

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1912-03-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Appeals from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York.

¶2Haight, Sandford & Smith (Charles S. Haight, of counsel), for appellant.

¶3Burlingham, Montgomery & Beecher (Charles C. Burlingham, Chauncey I. Clark, and Robinson Leech, of counsel), for appellees.

¶4Before LACOMBE, WARD, and NOYES, Circuit Judges.

¶5PER CURIAM.

¶6These causes come here upon appeal from decrees of the District Court, Eastern District of New York, entered in cross-actions brought to recover damages arising out of a collision between the steamship Diaria and the bark Boylston. The District Court held the Diana solely in fault for the collision. The opinion of Judge Chatfield will he found in 181 Fed. 263. A majority of this court are of the opinion that the decrees should he-affirmed — that in the first cause with interest, and with a-single bill of costs', in both causes — upon the opinion of the District Judge.