Opinion · United States District Court

NEW YORK PORTO RICO S.S. CO. v. UNITED STATES, (E.D.N.Y. 1940)

N.Y. PORTO RICO S.S. CO., & Waterman S.S. Co., Plaintiffs, v.UNITED STATES of Am. & United States Mar. Commission,Defendants., 36 F. Supp. 190 (United States District Court, E.D. New York. 1940)

Type: Opinion
Court: United States District Court
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1940-10-10
Topic: general

NEW YORK PORTO RICO S.S. CO. v. UNITED STATES, (E.D.N.Y. 1940) 36 F. Supp. 190 NEW YORK PORTO RICO S.S. CO., and Waterman S.S.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed NEW YORK PORTO RICO S.S. CO. v. UNITED STATES, (E.D.N.Y. 1940). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

NEW YORK PORTO RICO S.S. CO. v. UNITED STATES, (E.D.N.Y. 1940)

36 F. Supp. 190

NEW YORK PORTO RICO S.S. CO., and Waterman S.S. Co., Plaintiffs, v.

UNITED STATES of America and United States Maritime Commission,

Defendants.

Civ. No. 755.

United States District Court, E.D. New York.

October 10, 1940.

On rehearing.

Judgment reversed.

For former opinion, see32 F. Supp. 538.

Burlingham, Veeder, Clark Hupper, of New York City, for plaintiff.

Harold M. Kennedy, U.S. Atty., of Brooklyn, N.Y. (William E. Collins, of New York City, Sp. Asst. to U.S. Atty., and District Counsel, U.S. Maritime Commission, of counsel), for defendants.

BYERS, District Judge.

Motion for rehearing granted; and such rehearing being had, the motion to dismiss is granted, this Court being constrained to that decision by the memorandum of the Circuit Court of Appeals, 2 Cir.,116 F.2d 799, denying the application for prohibition.

Settle order.West Page 218