Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Beck v. Vizcaya

Beck v. Vizcaya, 182 F.2d 942 (3d Cir. 1950)

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1950-06-29
Topic: general

PER CURIAM. This is an appeal by the consignees of a cargo of bags of nuts from a decree *943which awarded them some but not all of the damages they sought against a carrier. The matter was thoroughly discussed in a full opinion by the court below. D.C.E.D. Pa.1949, 88 F.Supp. 818.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Beck v. Vizcaya. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 2 opinions

BECK v. VIZCAYA,182 F.2d 942(3rd Cir. 1950)

Mitchel BECK and John Vokiener, Copartners Trading as Mitchel Beck

Company, Appellants, v. Steamship VIZCAYA, etc., and all persons claiming

any interest therein, and Compania Anonima Maritima Union.

No. 10157.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Argued June 20, 1950.

Decided June 29, 1950.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Harry E. Kalodner, Judge.

Thomas E. Byrne, Jr., Philadelphia, Pa. (Krusen, Evans Shaw, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellants.

Harrison G. Kildare, Philadelphia, Pa. (Rawle Henderson, Philadelphia, Pa., Thomas F. Mount, Joseph W. Henderson, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.

Before GOODRICH, McLAUGHLIN and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the consignees of a cargo of bags of nuts from a decreePage 943which awarded them some but not all of the damages they sought against a carrier. The matter was thoroughly discussed in a full opinion by the court below. D.C.E.D. Pa. 1949,88 F. Supp. 818. We do not feel that we can add anything helpful to that discussion and so affirm on that opinion.

The decree of the District Court will be affirmed.Page 94