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.
Emma R. LINDSAY, Appellant, v. NANSEMOND BRICK CORPORATION, a Corporation, Appellee, 1924 — 1 F.2d 1022 · caselaw · US
Corporations
Emma R. LINDSAY, Appellant, v. NANSEMOND BRICK CORPORATION, a Corporation, Appellee
1 F.2d 1022·United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·1924
Before WOODS, WADDILL, and ROSE, Circuit Judges.
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
Emma R. LINDSAY, Appellant, v. NANSEMOND BRICK CORPORATION, a Corporation, Appellee.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
September 29, 1924.)
No. 2252.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern' District of Virginia, at Norfolk; D. Lawrence Groner, Judge.
S. M. Brandt, of Norfolk, Va., for appellant. Henry H. Little and Hughes, Little & Seawell, all of Norfolk, Va., for appellee.
Before WOODS, WADDILL, and ROSE, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — ROSE, Circuit Judge.]
ROSE, Circuit Judge.
The appellant is the owner of a barge or lighter. She hired it to the appellee. It sank some time after appellee’s goods had been put aboard, with damage as well to its cargo as to itself. There was the usual controversy as to whether the aecident_ was the result of its unseaworthiness, or of its improper loading by the appellee and subsequent lack of care on the part of the latter. In accordance with the great weight of evidence, the learned court below decided the dispute in favor of the appellee. Affirmed.