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.
In re LUCKENBACH S. S. CO., Inc. THE FREDERICK LUCKENBACH, 1926 — 16 F.2d 171 · caselaw · US
General
In re LUCKENBACH S. S. CO., Inc. THE FREDERICK LUCKENBACH
16 F.2d 171·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
In re LUCKENBACH S. S. CO., Inc. THE FREDERICK LUCKENBACH.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
November 1, 1926.)
No. 30.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York; John Clark Knox, Judge.
For opinion below, see 16 F.(2d) 168.
Carter & Phillips, of New York City (Peter S. Carter, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Hairy S. Austin, of New York City (Russell H. Robbins, of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.
Before HOUGH, MANTON, and HAND, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Claimant founded his claim, and the court below rested its decision, on a defective condition of the winch, not at all upon faulty management of the winch.
We think the evidence fairly shows the defective condition alleged and found. The rest follows as a matter of course, and the decree is affirmed, with costs.