1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.2d
  4. 223 F.2d
  5. 223 F.2d 260 (1955)
 

PITTSBURGH CONSOLIDATED COAL COMPANY v. HARRISON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

Nos. 11324, 11325, 11355 and 11356.

223 F.2d 260 (1955)

PITTSBURGH CONSOLIDATED COAL COMPANY v. HARRISON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, a Corporation, (Respondent), and Crain Bros., Inc., a Corporation, Respondent; In Personam, and The Motor Vessel CLIPPER in Rem, Crain Bros., Inc., The Motor Vessel "Clipper", Her Engines, Tackle, Furniture and Equipment, Appellants. AMERICAN BARGE LINE COMPANY v. HARRISON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, a Corporation, Respondent, and Crain Bros., Inc., a Corporation, Respondent, in Personam, and the Motor Vessel "Clipper", in Rem, Crain Bros., Inc., the Motor Vessel "Clipper", Her Engines, Tackle, Furniture and Equipment, Appellants. PITTSBURGH CONSOLIDATED COAL COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant, v. HARRISON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, a Corporation, (Respondent) and Crain Brothers, Inc., a Corporation (Respondent) in Personam, and The Motor Vessel "Clipper", in Rem. AMERICAN BARGE LINE COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant, v. HARRISON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, a Corporation (Respondent), and Crain Brothers, Inc., a Corporation (Respondent), in Personam and The Motor Vessel "Clipper", in Rem.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Decided June 7, 1955.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Harland I. Casteel, Pittsburgh, Pa. (H. A. Robinson, Dickie, McCamey, Chilcote, Reif & Robinson, Pittsburgh, Pa., Campbell, Houck & Thomas, Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for Crain Bros. Inc., a corporation, in personam, and The Clipper, in rem.

John R. Bredin, Pittsburgh, Pa. (Dalzell, Pringle, Bredin & Martin, Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for Pittsburgh Consolidation Co. and American Barge Line Co.

Ira R. Hill, Pittsburgh, Pa. (Dalzell, Pringle, Bredin & Martin, Pittsburgh, Pa., Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for Harrison Const. Co.

Before BIGGS, Chief Judge, and MARIS and McLAUGHLIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

A number of issues are presented by these appeals. The first is whether the towboat or the towing company was negligent in the method employed in tying the barges at the wharf. The second is whether the defendant wharfinger was negligent in its operation of the wharf. The third is whether there was a customary understanding in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, to be implied from the contract of towage in the instant case, that towboats or towing companies...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases