W. FRANK KINNEY, COLLECTOR, ETC., PETITIONER,

v.

SAMUEL MORRIS CONANT ET AL., EXECUTORS, ETC.

Citator

Cited By

• Hertz v. Woodman, 218 U.S. 205 (U.S. 1910)
• Fitzgerald v. United States Lines Co., 306 F.2d 461 (2d Cir. 1962)
  …s intended to deal with appeals to the circuit court but that the author had never heard of a case where a jury had been used. See also, notes to 28 U.S.C. § 771 (1940 ed.) and Munson S.S. Line v. Miramar SS. Co.,. 167 F. 960 (2 Cir.), cert. denied. 214 U.S. 526, 29 S.Ct. 704, 53 L.Ed. 1068 (1909). In addition to this explanation, it seems most unlikely that, with the enthusiasm of" the founders for jury trial and their adoption of Coke’s “enmity” of admiralty jurisdiction (see Buller, J., in Smart v._ [*4…
• Winn v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 595 F.2d 1060 (5th Cir. 1979)
  …e.’ ” We agree. Under maritime law, barge owners have an implied duty to furnish their vessels in a seaworthy condition. The Southwark, 191 U.S. 1, 24 S.Ct. 1, 48 L.Ed. 65 (1903); Church Cooperage Co. v. Pinkney, 170 F. 266 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 214 U.S. 526, 29 S.Ct. 704, 53 L.Ed. 1068 (1909). But merely proving compliance with this duty whether imposed by law or contract does not establish that Wagren has rendered any significant service. Maintenance and general repair, on the other hand, may amount t…