Case law

United States v. Wotten

50 F. 693 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · May 27, 1892

Robertson v. Downing, 127 U. S. 607 , 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1328. … The decision of the board of general appraisers is affirmed.

Dolner v. The Monticello

7 F. Cas. 858 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Sep 15, 1870

When the steamship struck the schooner,, four of the schooner’s crew jumped on board of the steamer. … In the case of The Jane v. The Great Eastern, carried to the judicial committee of the privy council on -appeals, reported in 11 Law T. (N.

Lothrop v. United States

164 F. 99 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Jul 27, 1908

S. v. Salambier, 170 U. S. 621 , 18 Sup. Ct. 771, 42 L. Ed. 1167 ; Burgess v. Converse, 2 Curt. 216 , Fed. Cas. No. 2,151; In re Hagop Bogigian Co. (C. C.) 104 Fed. 75 . U. S. v. Schefer (C. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

Warren v. Peaslee

29 F. Cas. 280 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · May 15, 1855

This case is decided by the opinion of the court in Gant v. Peaslee [Case No. 5,212], so far as respects freight being a dutiable charge. Two other questions have been made. … The plaintiffs rely on the decision of the supreme court, in the case of Marriott v. Bruce, 9 How. [50 U. S.] 619.

Boston Pneumatic Power Co. v. Eureka Patents Co.

139 F. 29 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Jul 6, 1905

Gold & Silver Ore Company v. U. S. Ore Company, Fed. Cas. No. 5,508. See Pentlarge v. Pentlarge (C. C.) 19 Fed. 817 ; Lockwood v. Cleveland (C. C.) 20 Fed. 164 ; Sawyer v. Massey (C. C.) 25 Fed. 144 ; Am. … Clay Bird Company v. Ligowski Clay Pigeon Company (C. C.) 31 Fed. 466 ; Elec. Accum. Company v. Brush El. Company (C. C.) 44 Fed. 602 ; Stonemetz Printers’ Company v. Brown Folding Company (C.

United States v. Britton

24 F. Cas. 1239 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · May 15, 1822

In Parks & Brown’s Case, 2 East, P. … In Rex v.

S. S. Pierce Co. v. United States

176 F. 440 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Feb 12, 1910

Under the reasoning of Nix v. … The decision of the Board of Appraisers is affirmed.

The Julia

14 F. Cas. 27 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · May 15, 1813

The vessel had on board sundry documents of protection from British agents, vnich were delivered up to the captors, and, together with the other ship’s papers, were put on board of the prize, in the custody of the prize-master … Adm. 50. 76: Antoine v. Morshead, 6 Taunt. 237, 1 Marsh. C. P. 558. See The Vreede Scholtys, 5 C. Rob. Adm. 5, note a; The Rendsborg, 4 C. Rob. Adm. 121. Vide The Planter’s Wensch, 5 C. Rob. Adm. 22.

Snow v. Taylor

22 F. Cas. 734 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Oct 9, 1878

Glue Co. v. Upton [Case No. 9,607], decided in this district, October, 1S74, and the cases cited in the opinion of Clifford, J. That decision has lately been affirmed by the supreme court. … Needham v. Washburn [Id. 10,082]; and Brown v. Piper, 91 U. S. 37 .

Peisch v. Dickson

19 F. Cas. 123 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Oct 15, 1815

contract a party were to assign his freight in a particular ship, it seems to me, that parol evidence might be admitted of the circumstances, under which the contract was made, to ascertain, whether it referred to goods on board … See Birch v. Depeyster, 4 Camp. 385; Clarke v. Russel, 3 Dall. [3 U. S.] 415, 421, note. NOTE. A bill of exceptions was tendered by the defendant, but afterwards was abandoned.

The George

10 F. Cas. 196 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Oct 15, 1814

There was also on board a supercargo. … Not to know these facts, as matters of frequent and not unfamiliar occurrence, would be not to know the general nature of the subject, upon which the court is to decide; not to consider them at all V/ould not be to do justice

Salmon Falls Manuf'g Co. v. The Tangier

21 F. Cas. 262 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · May 15, 1860

Carr. § 313; Norway Plains Co. v. Boston & M. R. Co., 1 Gray. 271; Fisk v. Newton. 1 Denio, 45 ; Thomas v. Boston & P. R. Co., 10 Metc. [Mass.] 472; Carside v. Proprietors of Trent & M. Nav. … Ed.) 480; Gatliffe v. Bourne, 4 Bing. N. C. 314; Bourne v. Gatliff, 11 Clark & F. 45; Price v. Powell, 3 Comst. [3 N. Y.] 326.

Gant v. Peaslee

9 F. Cas. 1143 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · May 15, 1855

The evidence showed that a parcel of figs, admitted to be the produce of Turkey, were shipped at Smyrna by the plaintiff, on board a steamer called the Melita, under a bill of lading, which made them deliverable in Boston … In the case of Grinnell v. Lawrence [Case No. 5,831], Mr. Justice Nelson had occasion to consider a similar question arising under the tariff act of 1842 ( 3 Stat. 548 ).

City of Carlsbad v. Tibbetts

51 F. 852 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Aug 16, 1892

In Brewing Association v. Piza, 24 Fed. Rep. 149, and in White Lead Co. v. Cary, 25 Fed. … Montgomery, ubi supra, and Lee v. Haley, L. R. 5 Ch. App. 155. Itis fully recognized in Nail Co. v. Bennett, 43 Fed. Rep. 800, and in Lawrence Manuf'g Co. v.

Carrington v. Stimson

5 F. Cas. 159 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Oct 15, 1853

The notice to the respondent is in the usual form, and the officer’s return thereon states that he served the notice “by leaving a copy of the same on board the bark Weybopel, lying at Constitution wharf, in Boston, where … Bell v. Morrison, 1 Pet [26 U. S.] 351; Patapsco Ins. Co. v. Southgate, 5 Pet. [30 U. S.] 604. It must appear that every requisite has been complied with.

Choate v. Crowninshield

5 F. Cas. 646 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Oct 15, 1868

Ellis v. Willard, 5 Seld. [9 N. Y.] 530; Shepherd v. Naylor, 5 Gray, 592 ; Barrett v. Rogers, 7 Mass. 297 ; Haddow v. Parry. 3 Taunt. 303; Macl. Shipp. 339; Bates v. Todd, 1 Moody & R. 106; Sears v. … Due care was used in taking the cargo on board, and the goods of the respondent were well stowed and dunnaged.

Dean v. Bates

7 F. Cas. 299 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Oct 15, 1846

And though proceedings in admiralty are, as argued by the counsel for the libel-lant, founded on the civil law like those in chancery (2 Browne, Civ. & Adm. … Andrews v. Essex Fire & Marine Ins. Co.

The Alligator

1 F. Cas. 527 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · May 15, 1812

The district court possessing this jurisdiction, and being fully authorized to adopt the process and 'modes of proceeding of the admiralty, (Respublica v. Lacaze. 2 Dall. [2 U. S.] 118. See, also, [Brymer v. … See [Smart v. Wolff,] 3 Term R. 323; [King v. Perry,] 3 Salk. 23; [Brymer v. Atkins.] 1 H. Bl. 164; 2 Brown, Civil & Adm. Law, 96.

United States v. Small

27 F. Cas. 1128 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · May 15, 1855

S. v. Wilson [Case No. 16,730]. … Rex v. Noakes, 5 Car. & P. 326.

Tobey v. County of Bristol

23 F. Cas. 1313 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · May 15, 1845

In respect to the former class, I will barely refer to Wellington v. Mackintosh, 2 Atk. 569; Mitchell v. Harris, 4 Brown, Ch. 311, 2 Ves. Jr. 129; Kill v. Hollister, 1 Wils. 129; Street v. … Jur. § 959a; Morris v. Colman, 18 Ves. 437; Clarke v. Price, 3 Wils. Ch. 157; Baldwin v.