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.
William NOIRMOT, J. Olsen, Peder Hansen, J. Windehl and M. Derrane, Appellants and Cross-Appellees, v. Schooner ROSEMARY, Charles J. Denechand, Owner, and W. N. Burbidge, Master, Appellees and Cross-Appellants, 1925 — 9 F.2d 982 · caselaw · US
General
William NOIRMOT, J. Olsen, Peder Hansen, J. Windehl and M. Derrane, Appellants and Cross-Appellees, v. Schooner ROSEMARY, Charles J. Denechand, Owner, and W. N. Burbidge, Master, Appellees and Cross-Appellants
9 F.2d 982·United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·1925
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
William NOIRMOT, J. Olsen, Peder Hansen, J. Windehl and M. Derrane, Appellants and Cross-Appellees, v. Schooner ROSEMARY, Charles J. Denechand, Owner, and W. N. Burbidge, Master, Appellees and Cross-Appellants.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
November 23, 1925.)
No. 2436.
Cross-Appeals from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk; Edmund Waddill, Judge.
For opinion in court below, see 9 F.(2d) .980.
Jacob Louis Morewitz, of Newport News, Va., for appellants and cross-appellees.
John V. Groner, of Norfolk, Va. (Groner & Gary, of Norfolk, Va., S. L. Sinnott, of Richmond, Va., and Barham R. Gary, of Norfolk, Va., on the brief), for appellees and cross-appellants.
Before ROSE and PARKER, Circuit Judges, and WATKINS, District Judge.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
We have considered the testimony and the oral and printed arguments. We are satisfied that the amount awarded by the deeree helow to the libelant Noirmot is ample to cover all claims he has against the respondents or either of them. We are not prepared to say it is excessive. We believe that the learned court below was right in holding that the other libelants had failed to establish any ground for recovery.
Affirmed.