UNITED STATES
v.
QUIMBY
UNITED STATES
QUIMBY
4 Wall. 408
Supreme Court of the United States (1866)
Caution
Also reported at: 18 L. Ed. 397 · 1866 U.S. LEXIS 889 · SCDB 1866-046
Cited by 29 cases
Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court.
The case falls within the construction of the treaty in the case of the United States v. Hathaway.
The article, we think, is chargeable with a duty of twenty per centum ad valorem, under the twenty-fourth section of the act of March 2d, 1861, which imposes this duty “ on all articles manufactured, in whole or in part,” not otherwise provided for. The court answer the question, in the certificate of division of opinion,
In the aeeiRMAtive.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (29 total)
-
Darce Carlisle v. Carnival Corp., 864 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…h, 762 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (general maritime law applies to a claim for a ship’s doctor’s malpractice). Additionally, a cruise ship ticket is a maritime contract, governed by maritime law. See The Moses Taylor, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 411, 427, 18 L.Ed. 397 (1866); Wallis v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 306 F. 3d 827, 834 (9th Cir. 2002). It is axiomatic under maritime law that a carrier owes a duty to its passengers to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances. See Kermarec v. Compagnie Generate Tr…
-
Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd. v. Clark, 841 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…e trial court denied its motion. Norwegian then filed this appeal. Discussion A passenger ticket for a cruise and its terms are considered a maritime contract to be analyzed under federal maritime law. The Moses Taylor, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 411, 427, 18 L.Ed. 397 (1866); Hodes v. S.N.C. Achille Lauro ed Altri-Gestione, 858 F. 2d 905, 909 (3d Cir.1988). The United States Supreme Court has held that forum selection clauses are prima facie valid even though they have not been historically favored, The Bremen…
-
Carnival Corp. v. Darce Carlisle, 953 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 2007)…ines, Inc., 1977 A.M.C. 2159 (S.D.N.Y.1977); Churchill v. United Fmit Co., 294 F. 400, 402 (D.Mass.1923); The Napoli-tan Prince, 134 F. 159, 160 (E.D.N.Y. 1-904). . The United States Supreme Court in The Moses Taylor, 4 Wall. 411, 71 U.S. 411, 431, 18 L.Ed. 397 (1866), held that an in rem proceeding against a vessel is purely an admiralty proceeding and is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts. See also Red Cross Line v. Atlantic Fruit Co., 264 U.S. 109, 124, 44 S.Ct. 274, 68 L.Ed. 582 (1…
Previewing 3 of 29 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence