THE FEDERAL CONTRACTING COMPANY, PETITIONER,

v.

BOWERS HYDRAULIC DREDGING COMPANY

Citator

Cited By

• In re the Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R.R. Co. Sec. & Antitrust Litig., 543 F.2d 1058 (3d Cir. 1976)
  …, 8 (collecting authorities). . See, e. g., ArCola Sugar Mills Co. v. Burnham, 67 F. 2d 981, 982 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 292 U.S. 630, 54 S.Ct. 640, 78 L.Ed. 1484 (1930); Gorman-Wright Co. v. Wright, 134 F. 363, 364 (4th Cir. 1904), cert. denied, 207 U.S. 587, 28 S.Ct. 255, 52 L.Ed. 353 (1907). . At oral argument it was suggested that Irving would not have derivative standing under Delaware law. See Harff v. Kerkorian, 324 A. 2d 215 (Del.Ch. 1974), rev’d on other grounds, 347 A. 2d 133 (Del.Sup.Ct.) (pe…
• R. Maloblocki & Assocs., Inc. v. Metro. Sanitary Dist. OF Greater Chicago, 369 F.2d 483 (7th Cir. 1966)
  …in In re Hydraulic Steam Dredge Co. No. 1. In both the Smadbeek and Kenny cases, however, the Second Circuit relied upon Bowers Hydraulic Dredging Co. v. Federal Contracting Co., 148 F. 290 (S.D.N.Y.1906), aff’d, 153 F. 870 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 207 U.S. 587, 28 S.Ct. 255, 52 L.Ed. 352 (1907). There libelant sued for hire of a dredge. The chartered dredge was used for dredging material from the Passaic River and dumping the material on shore, but was “not employed in deepening the channel.” Libelant con…