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.
NEWTOWN CREEK TOWING COMPANY, Libelant-Appellee, v. NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, Respondent-Appellant, 1926 — 12 F.2d 1017 · caselaw · US
General
NEWTOWN CREEK TOWING COMPANY, Libelant-Appellee, v. NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, Respondent-Appellant
12 F.2d 1017·United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·1926
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
NEWTOWN CREEK TOWING COMPANY, Libelant-Appellee, v. NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, Respondent-Appellant.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
June 17, 1926.)
No. 373.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York.
Alex S. Lyman, of New York City (Jacob Aronson, Leo Manville and Lawrence R. Walton, all of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Alexander & Ash, of New York City (Edward Ash and Mark Ash, both of New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
Before HOUGH, MANTON, and HAND, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Decree affirmed, with interest and costs.