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.
BRITAIN S. S. CO., Limited, v. MUNSON S. S. LINE, 1929 — 34 F.2d 980 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
BRITAIN S. S. CO., Limited, v. MUNSON S. S. LINE
34 F.2d 980·United States District Court for the Southern District of New York·1929
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
BRITAIN S. S. CO., Limited, v. MUNSON S. S. LINE.
District Court, S. D. New York.
July 1, 1929.
Kirlin, Campbell, Hickox, Keating & Mc-Grann, of New York City, for libelant.
Bumsey & Morgan, of New York City, for respondent.
[MAJORITY — KNOX, District Judge.]
KNOX, District Judge.
It is my interpretation of the opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals, 31 F.(2d) 530, that it was intended that libelant’s damages should be the difference between the first contractual obligation of tbe charterer, at the rate of hire therein specified, and the amount paid on the later charter over the period within whieh the vessel should not have been redelivered, viz., $1,747.89.
I likewise feel that the appellate court did not mean that the time consumed in fumigating the vessel should be at charterer’s expense. During that period she was, as it were, off hire. I have amended the within decree accordingly, and as amended have signed the same.