Opinion · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

WARNER SUGAR REFINING CO. v. MUNSON S.S. LINE, 32 F.2d 1021 (2nd Cir. 1929)

WARNER SUGAR Refin. Co., Libelant-Appellee, v. MUNSON STEAMSHIPLINE, Respondent-Appellant. MUNSON S.S. LINE,Cross-Libelant-Appellant, v. WARNER SUGAR Refin. COMPANY,Cross-Respondent-Appellee., 32 F.2d 1021 (2d Cir. 1929)

Type: Opinion
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1929-05-20
Topic: general

WARNER SUGAR REFINING CO. v. MUNSON S.S. LINE, 32 F.2d 1021 (2nd Cir. 1929) WARNER SUGAR REFINING COMPANY, Libelant-Appellee, v. MUNSON STEAMSHIPLINE, Respondent-Appellant. MUNSON STEAMSHIP LINE,Cross-Libelant-Appellant, v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed WARNER SUGAR REFINING CO. v. MUNSON S.S. LINE, 32 F.2d 1021 (2nd Cir. 1929). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

WARNER SUGAR REFINING CO. v. MUNSON S.S. LINE,32 F.2d 1021(2nd Cir. 1929)

WARNER SUGAR REFINING COMPANY, Libelant-Appellee, v. MUNSON STEAMSHIP

LINE, Respondent-Appellant. MUNSON STEAMSHIP LINE,

Cross-Libelant-Appellant, v. WARNER SUGAR REFINING COMPANY,

Cross-Respondent-Appellee.

No. 342.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 20, 1929.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.

Bigham, Englar, Jones Houston, of New York City (Henry N. Longley, F. Herbert Prem, and Roger H. Loughran, all of New York City, of counsel), for libelant cross-respondent.

Kirlin, Woolsey, Campbell, Hickox Keating, of New York City (L. De Grove Potter and Earl Appleman, both of New York City, of counsel), for respondent and cross-libelant.

Before MANTON, SWAN, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Decree (23 F.2d 194) affirmed.Page 115