Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

328 F.2d 623

Docket No. 20528

J. S. Gissel & Co. v. Sir William Reardon Smith & Sons, Ltd.

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals

March 3, 1964.

Rehearing Denied April 3, 1964.

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1964-03-03

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently March 1964

3 federal appellate ·

3 counsel of record

Relies on Sir William Reardon Smith & Sons, Ltd. v. Tug San Pedro

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1964-03-03

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1

Edward W. Watson, Eastham, Watson, Dale & Forney, Galveston, Tex., for appellant-appellee.

¶2

Harold R. DeMoss, Jr., Bracewell, Reynolds & Patterson, Houston, Tex., for Signal Oil & Gas Co.

¶3

Bryan F. Williams, Jr., Royston, Rayzor & Cook, Galveston, Tex., for Sir William Reardon Smith & Sons, Ltd.

¶4

Before HUTCHESON and BELL, Circuit Judges, and BREWSTER, District Judge.

¶5

PER CURIAM.

¶6

This is an appeal from a judgment in admiralty in a collision case on the Houston Ship Channel.

¶7

The district judge filed full findings of fact and conclusions of law,1 and entered judgment accordingly.

¶8

As is usual in cases of this kind, the appellant makes a great outcry against the findings. We are, however, convinced that this is much ado about nothing and that the decree should be affirmed on the ground that the findings are not shown to be clearly erroneous.

¶9

Affirmed.

Notes:

1

Smith & Sons Ltd., v. Tug San Pedro, D.C., 226 F.Supp. 879

/328/f2d/623 · .json · Public domain