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.
MUNSON Steamship Line, Libelant-Appellant, v. Steam Tug HELMSMAN, Her Engines, etc.; Robert Rogers and Frederick E. Jones, Claimants-Appellees; Frederick E. Jones, Libelant-Appellee, v. Steamship TUSCAN, Her Engines, etc.; Munson Steamship Line, Claimant-Appellant, Steam Tug Helmsman, Her Engines, etc., Robert Rogers and Frederick E. Jones, Claimants-Appellees, 1925 — 11 F.2d 444 · caselaw · US
General
MUNSON Steamship Line, Libelant-Appellant, v. Steam Tug HELMSMAN, Her Engines, etc.; Robert Rogers and Frederick E. Jones, Claimants-Appellees; Frederick E. Jones, Libelant-Appellee, v. Steamship TUSCAN, Her Engines, etc.; Munson Steamship Line, Claimant-Appellant, Steam Tug Helmsman, Her Engines, etc., Robert Rogers and Frederick E. Jones, Claimants-Appellees
11 F.2d 444·United States Court of Appeals for the Second 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
MUNSON Steamship Line, Libelant-Appellant, v. Steam Tug HELMSMAN, Her Engines, etc.; Robert Rogers and Frederick E. Jones, Claimants-Appellees. Frederick E. Jones, Libelant-Appellee, v. Steamship TUSCAN, Her Engines, etc.; Munson Steamship Line, Claimant-Appellant, Steam Tug Helmsman, Her Engines, etc., Robert Rogers and Frederick E. Jones, Claimants-Appellees.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
December 21, 1925.)
Nos. 122, 123.
Appeals from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
Burlingham, Veeder, Masten & Fearey, of New York City (Chauncey I. Clark and Roy H. Caldwell, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellants.
Bigham, Englar & Jones, of New York City (Leonard J. Matteson, of New York City, of counsel), for appellees.
Before ROGERS, MANTON, and HAND, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Decrees (11 F.[2d] 441) affirmed.