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.
James Gregway, Libelant-Appellee, v. Steam Tug MARY J. KENNEDY, Her Engines, etc.; Kennedy Towing Line, Inc., Claimant-Appellant; Steam Tug Transfer No. 14, Her Engines, etc.; New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company, Claimant-Appellee; Kennedy Towing Line, Inc., Libelant-Appellant, v. Steam Tug TRANSFER NO. 14, Her Engines, etc.; New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company, Claimant-Appellee, 1926 — 11 F.2d 172 · caselaw · US
General
James Gregway, Libelant-Appellee, v. Steam Tug MARY J. KENNEDY, Her Engines, etc.; Kennedy Towing Line, Inc., Claimant-Appellant; Steam Tug Transfer No. 14, Her Engines, etc.; New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company, Claimant-Appellee; Kennedy Towing Line, Inc., Libelant-Appellant, v. Steam Tug TRANSFER NO. 14, Her Engines, etc.; New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company, Claimant-Appellee
11 F.2d 172·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
James Gregway, Libelant-Appellee, v. Steam Tug MARY J. KENNEDY, Her Engines, etc.; Kennedy Towing Line, Inc., Claimant-Appellant; Steam Tug Transfer No. 14, Her Engines, etc.; New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company, Claimant-Appellee. Kennedy Towing Line, Inc., Libelant-Appellant, v. Steam Tug TRANSFER NO. 14, Her Engines, etc.; New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company, Claimant-Appellee.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
February 15, 1926.)
Nos. 180, 181.
Appeals from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Néw York.
Foley & Martin, of New York City, for appellant.
Macklin, Brown & Van Wyek, of New York City (Paul Speer, of New York City, of counsel), for libelant-appellee.
Haight, Smith, Griffin & Deming, of New York City (Henry M. Hewitt and James MeKown, Jr., both of New York City, of counsel), for claimant-appellee.
Before ROGERS, HOUGH, and MACK, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Decrees (11 F.[2d] 169) affirmed.