Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
KOHLER & CHASE et al. v. UNITED AMERICAN LINES, Inc., et al., 1932 — 60 F.2d 530 · caselaw · US
Admiralty
KOHLER & CHASE et al. v. UNITED AMERICAN LINES, Inc., et al.
60 F.2d 530·United States District Court for the Southern District of New York·1932
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
KOHLER & CHASE et al. v. UNITED AMERICAN LINES, Inc., et al.
District Court, S. D. New York.
July 12, 1932.
See, also, 46 F.(2d) 178.
Hunt, Hill & Betts and John W. Crandall, all of New York City, for libelants.
Burlingham, Veeder, Fearey, Clark & Hupper, William J. Dean, and Roseoe H, Hupper, all of New York City, for United American Linos.
Douglass C. Lawrence and Sawyer Thompson, both of New York City, for Frank B. Hall & Co. and other respondents.
[MAJORITY — FRANK J. COLEMAN, District Judge.]
FRANK J. COLEMAN, District Judge.
In admiralty. Exceptions by libelants and respondents to report of special commissioner appointed by Judge Woolsey to hear and report upon all the issues raised by the pleadings. Without reciting each of the forty-four exceptions filed, by the libelants, it must suffice to state that I have examined them and have not only found tho special commissioner’s rulings correct, but that he has adequately staled the basis for them.
As to the exceptions of the respondents, while it is regrettable that further litigation may be necessary in order to determine the rights of all the parties, I believe that the special commissioner was technically correct in his rulings as to the insufficiency of the tender and the unavailability of the offset. These exceptions also are, therefore, overruled. '
Settle decree in accordance with the report of the special commissioner.