Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

A. L. Mechling Barge Lines, Inc. v. Derby Company, Ltd.

399 F.2d 304

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1968-08-05
Topic
antitrust

PER CURIAM: We agree with the holding below and adopt the district court’s opinion (“findings of fact and conclusions of law”) as the opinion of this Court. See 258 F.Supp. 206 (1966). We consider that Bisso v. Inland Waterways Corp., 1955, 349 U.S. 85, 75 S.Ct. 629, 99 L.Ed. 911 and Dixilyn Drilling Corp. v. Crescent Towing & Salvage Co., 1963, 372 U.S. 697, 83 S.Ct. 967, 10 L.Ed.2d 78, are relevant, if not necessarily controlling.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed A. L. Mechling Barge Lines, Inc. v. Derby Company, Ltd.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
13 opinions
A.L. MECHLING BARGE LINES, INC. v. DERBY, LTD.,399 F.2d 304(5th Cir. 1968)
A.L. MECHLING BARGE LINES, INC., Appellant, v. DERBY COMPANY, Ltd.,
Appellee.
No. 24329.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
August 5, 1968.
Page 305
J.Y. Gilmore, Jr., Faris, Ellis, Cutrone, Gilmore Lautenschlaeger, New Orleans, La., for A.L. Mechling Barge Lines, Inc.

William S. Stone, Deutsch, Kerrigan Stiles, New Orleans, La., for Derby Company, Ltd.; Renè S. Paysse, New Orleans, La., of counsel.
Before JONES, WISDOM and DYER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
We agree with the holding below and adopt the district court's opinion ("findings of fact and conclusions of law") as the opinion of this Court. See258 F. Supp. 206(1966). We consider that Bisso v. Inland Waterways Corp., 1955,349 U.S. 85,75 S.Ct. 629,99 L.Ed. 911and Dixilyn Drilling Corp. v. Crescent Towing Salvage Co., 1963,372 U.S. 697,83 S.Ct. 967,10 L.Ed.2d 78, are relevant, if not necessarily controlling. We recognize the difference between negligence and unseaworthiness and between a private carrier and a common carrier. But we are dealing here with theconstructionof an exculpatory clause. Even ifBissoandDixilynwere distinguishable, we would feel compelled to say that, absent plainly unambiguous language, a general exculpatory clause cannot be construed to mean that it relieves a shipowner of the obligation of furnishing a seaworthy vessel.

The judgment is affirmed.Page 306