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 C. TOWNSEND, Master and Owner of Power Boat VELMA BROOKS, and R. E. Roberts, Trading and Doing Business as Lord-Mott Company, Appellants, v. MUNSON STEAMSHIP LINE, Claimant of Steamship MUNDOLPHIN, Her Engines, etc., Appellee, 1933 — 66 F.2d 1019 · caselaw · US
General
William C. TOWNSEND, Master and Owner of Power Boat VELMA BROOKS, and R. E. Roberts, Trading and Doing Business as Lord-Mott Company, Appellants, v. MUNSON STEAMSHIP LINE, Claimant of Steamship MUNDOLPHIN, Her Engines, etc., Appellee
66 F.2d 1019·United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·1933
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 C. TOWNSEND, Master and Owner of Power Boat VELMA BROOKS, and R. E. Roberts, Trading and Doing Business as Lord-Mott Company, Appellants, v. MUNSON STEAMSHIP LINE, Claimant of Steamship MUNDOLPHIN, Her Engines, etc., Appellee.
No. 3544.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Oct. 20, 1933.
George W. P. Whip, of Baltimore, Md. (Lord & Whip, of Baltimore, Md., on the brief), for appellants.
Robert W. Williams, of Baltimore, Md. (Janney, Ober & Williams and William A. Grimes, all of Baltimore, Md., on the brief), for appellee.
Before PARKER, NORTHCOTT, and SOPER, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
A careful examination of the record of this case convinces us that the decree below (3 P. Supp. 766) should he affirmed for the reasons stated in the opinion of the District Judge, which is hereby adopted as the opinion of this Court.
Affirmed.