From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lackritz v. Petersen.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Jan 9, 1940
31 F. Supp. 415 (S.D.N.Y. 1940)

Opinion

January 9, 1940.

Libel by Joseph S. Lackritz and another against Julius Petersen. On respondent's motion for an order sustaining exceptions to the libel.

Motion denied.

Bigham, Englar, Jones Houston, of New York City, (John L. Quinlan, of New York City, of counsel), for libellants.

Mahar Mason, of New York City, for respondent.


Respondent moves for an order sustaining exceptions to the libel and invokes the 22nd Rule in Admiralty following 28 U.S.C.A. § 723.

It is the settled law that the owner of a shipyard who takes a vessel into his custody and control is a bailee. International Mercantile Marine S. S. Co. v. W. A. Fletcher Co., 2 Cir., 296 F. 855; Pan-American Petroleum Transportation Co. v. Robins Dry Dock Repair Co., 2 Cir., 281 F. 97; United States v. Newport News Shipbuilding Dry Dock Co., D.C., 21 F.2d 112, reversed on other grounds, 4 Cir., 34 F.2d 100. Although the ultimate liability of the bailee must depend upon the establishment of negligence, Tomkins Cove Stone Co. v. Bleakley Transportation Co., 3 Cir., 40 F.2d 249, his failure to redeliver the vessel raises a presumption of negligence. Alpine Forwarding Co. v. Pennsylvania R., Co., 2 Cir., 60 F.2d 734. Motion denied.


Summaries of

Lackritz v. Petersen.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Jan 9, 1940
31 F. Supp. 415 (S.D.N.Y. 1940)
Case details for

Lackritz v. Petersen.

Case Details

Full title:LACKRITZ et al. v. PETERSEN

Court:United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Jan 9, 1940

Citations

31 F. Supp. 415 (S.D.N.Y. 1940)

Citing Cases

The Gladys

But here respondent became a bailee when the vessel was delivered to it for repairs. Hence, libellant…

Sinko Tool Mfg. Co. v. Automatic Devices

The statute declares that "the record in the Patent Office shall be admitted * * * without prejudice,…