From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Armour & Co. v. Compania Argentina De Navegacion Dodero, S.A.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Feb 4, 1959
263 F.2d 323 (2d Cir. 1959)

Opinion

No. 90, Docket 25056.

Argued January 9, 1959.

Decided February 4, 1959.

Donald B. Allen, of Hill, Betts Nash, New York City, for respondent-appellant.

F. Herbert Prem, of Bigham, Englar, Jones Houston, New York City, for libelant-appellee.

Before CLARK, Chief Judge, MOORE, Circuit Judge, and GIBSON, District Judge.


On this appeal respondent challenges only certain findings of fact of the trial court, made as a part of a reasoned opinion. Such findings may be upset only if clearly erroneous. F.R. 52 (a); McAllister v. United States, 348 U.S. 19, 75 S.Ct. 6, 99 L.Ed. 20; A.H. Bull S.S. Co. v. The Exanthia, 2 Cir., 234 F.2d 650, 653; Schroeder Bros., Inc. v. The Saturnia, 2 Cir., 226 F.2d 147, 149; Union Carbide Carbon Corp. v. United States, 2 Cir., 200 F.2d 908, 910. And we find each of them supported by ample evidence.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Armour & Co. v. Compania Argentina De Navegacion Dodero, S.A.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Feb 4, 1959
263 F.2d 323 (2d Cir. 1959)
Case details for

Armour & Co. v. Compania Argentina De Navegacion Dodero, S.A.

Case Details

Full title:ARMOUR COMPANY, Libelant-Appellee, v. COMPANIA ARGENTINA DE NAVEGACION…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Date published: Feb 4, 1959

Citations

263 F.2d 323 (2d Cir. 1959)
1959 A.M.C. 938

Citing Cases

Levatino Company v. American President Lines, Ltd.

VIII. Respondent was not obliged to accept carriage of the chestnuts but once it did respondent was charged…

Konfort, S.A. v. the S.S. Santo Cerro

Improper ventilation would produce a sweat condition, that could account for some wetting of the coils of…