DOROTHY LEE
v.
UNITED STATES
DOROTHY LEE
UNITED STATES
273 U.S. 736
Supreme Court of the United States (1926)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion
Full opinion text not available for this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Scheibel v. Agwilines, Inc., 156 F.2d 636 (2d Cir. 1946)…after the year had elapsed would be ineffective as a waiver. See W. R. Grace & Co. v. Panama R. Co., 2 Cir, 12 F. 2d 338, 340, certiorari denied 273 U.S. 715, 47 S.Ct. 108, 71 L.Ed. 855; The Texas Maru, 2 Cir., 13 F. 2d 538, 541, certiorari denied 273 U.S. 736, 47 S.Ct. 244, 71 L.Ed. 866. Hence, if federal law is to be applied, the conversation was irrelevant. If, as the appellant contends, we must apply New York law, he fares no better, because the ticket contained a provision that “No agent, employee…
-
E. Cerli & Co., Inc. v. Cunard S. S. Co. (S.D.N.Y. 1930)…ertiorari denied 273 U. S. 715, 47 S. Ct. 108, 71 L. Ed. 855; Cudahy Packing Co. v. Munson S. S. Co. (C. C. A.) 22 F.(2d) 898, certiorari denied 277 U. S. 586, 48 S. Ct. 433, 72 L. Ed. 1000; The Texas Maru (C. C. A.) 13 F.(2d) 538, certiorari denied 273 U. S. 736, 47 S. Ct. 244, 71 L. Ed. 866. The libelant contends that the British “Carriage of Goods by Sea Act” (Parliament of Great Britain, 1924, 14 and 15 Geo V. C. 22) applies because the bill of lading states that, “This contract shall he governed by Eng…