JULIUS CONRAD ET AL.

v.

THE MAZATLAN, AND THE OWNER THEREOF, ETC.

Citator

Cited By

• Pessagno v. Euclid Inv. Co., Inc., 112 F.2d 577 (D.C. Cir. 1940)
  …examined the petition in that case, and the only question on certiorari is the disposition of the motion for new trial in the alternative. Two cases in the Second Circuit are largely similar. Hoffman v. American Mills, 288 F. 768, certiorari. denied 263 U.S. 701, 44 S.Ct. 6, 68 L.Ed. 514; and Skelley v. New York, New Haven, & H. R. Co., 93 F. 2d 479. In those cases the verdict for the plaintiff was reinstated.6 Between the two cases, however, the Second Circuit had a case in which the trial judge, as is the…
• Meyers v. The Selznick Co., Inc., 373 F.2d 218 (2d Cir. 1966)
  …rbin on Contracts § 554 at 223 (2d ed. 1960) — although such a distinction has been drawn. See, e. g., Goddard v. Foster, 17 Wall. (84 U.S.) 123, 142, 21 [*222] L.Ed. 589 (1872); Hoffman v. American Mills Co., 288 F. 768, 772 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 263 U.S. 701, 44 S.Ct. 6, 68 L.Ed. 514 (1923). However, the traditional formulation goes considerably beyond the authorities, at least for the federal courts.1 In a case often cited in support of the orthodox view, Hamilton v. Liverpool & London and Globe Ins. C…
• Thomas v. Pacific S. S. Lines, 84 F.2d 506 (9th Cir. 1936)
  …the shipper reserves to himself the care and control of the cargo while in transit, and injury occurs thereto by reason of the acts and orders of the shipper, there is no liability on the carrier. The Mazatlan (C.C.A.9) 287 F. 873 [certiorari denied 263 U.S. 701, 44 S.Ct. 6, 68 L.Ed. 514]. See, also, The Powhattan (C.C.N.Y.) 12 F. 876, opinion by Circuit Justice Blatchford. In the face of the fact that appellants refused the space allotted by the carrier, chose another space, directed the dogs to be placed…