Reichert Towing Line, Inc. v. Long Island Machine & Marine Const. Co.
| Decision Date | 18 October 1922 |
| Citation | 287 F. 269 |
| Parties | REICHERT TOWING LINE, Inc., v. LONG ISLAND MACHINE & MARINE CONST. CO. et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Foley & Martin, of New York City, for libelant.
Alexander & Ash, of New York City (Mark Ash and Edward Ash, both of New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
William Rasquin, Jr., of New York City, for McGee-Russell Founders' & Machinists' Co., Inc.
Libelant brought an action in admiralty against the respondent for damages caused by the latter's failure to deliver a cylinder which it was to build and install in the tug Joseph C. Reichert within 5 weeks from the arrival of the tug at the respondent's plant. The libel sets forth that the cylinder was installed some months after the agreed time, and that as soon as the tug was put in operation the cylinder burst; that the respondent agreed to install a new cylinder in place thereof within 26 days, but delayed so doing for a further period of several months. Damages are demanded, based upon the reasonable value of the use of the vessel for the time during which she was withheld from libelant.
The respondent has filed a petition, under rule 56 of the General Rules in Admiralty (267 F. xxi), praying that McGee-Russell Founders' & Machinists' Company, Inc., may be brought in to answer the libel, claiming that the latter is primarily liable for any delay for which the respondent would be answerable in damages to libelant. The petition alleges that subsequent to the arrival of the tug at respondent's plant, the respondent made an agreement with Joseph McGee Iron & Brass Foundry Company (for the obligations of which McGee-Russell Founders' & Machinists' Company, Inc. has since become liable) by which the said McGee Company was to make a casting of the said cylinder, well knowing the uses for which it was intended, and that the McGee Company impliedly warranted said casting to be fit for said uses and purposes; that the cylinder was defective, and that the McGee Company, when notified, furnished another. The McGee-Russell Company has filed exceptions, both to the libel and to the petition, claiming, first, that neither discloses any damages to libelant and to petitioner as against respondent; second that neither discloses any maritime claim or lien upon which a decree in admiralty against respondent can rest; third, that neither discloses any claim or lien as a result of which ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Armour Co v. Ft Morgan Co
...The Goyaz (D. C.) 281 F. 259; Aktieselskabet Fido v. Lloyd Braziliero (C. C. A.) 283 F. 62; Reichert Towing Line v. Long Island Machine & Marine Const. Co. (D. C.) 287 F. 269. See, also, Red. Cross Line v. Atlantic Fruit Co., 44 S. Ct. 274, 264 U. S. 109, 123, 68 L. Ed. 582. ...
-
Linen Thread Co. v. Shaw
...F. 689, 21 C. C. A. 12; The Highland Light (D. C.) 88 F. 296; The Venezuela (D. C.) 173 F. 834; Reichert Towing Line, Inc., v. Long Island Machine & Marine Construction Co. (D. C.) 287 F. 269. Regardless of the statute of Massachusetts, there is under the common law an implied warranty that......
-
TODD SHIPYARDS CORPORATION v. Harbor Side Trading & Supply Co.
...and Seas Shipping Co., Inc., v. Sieracki, 328 U.S. 85, 66 S.Ct. 872, 90 L.Ed. 1099. The case of Reichert Towing Line, Inc., v. Long Island Machine & Marine Const. Co. et al., D.C., 287 F. 269, which cites and follows, on this point, Aktieselskabet Fido v. Lloyd Brazileiro et al., 2 Cir., 28......
-
Mart Waterman Co., Inc. v. Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co., Ltd., of Liverpool, England
... ... 565; ... Herbert v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., 174 ... A.D. 905, 160 N.Y.Supp ... ...