Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
Avondale Marine Ways, Inc. v. Henderson
74 S. Ct. 100
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1953-11-16
- Topic
- general
“In nautical parlance ‘dry dock,’ ‘floating dock[,]’ and ‘marine railway’ are interchangeable terms.” | marine railway included in definition of dry dock | marine railway included in definition of dry dock | appellant conceded the issue of intent
Citator
- Cited by
- 33 opinions
AVONDALE MARINE WAYSv. HENDERSON,346 U.S. 366(1953)
74 S.Ct. 100
AVONDALE MARINE WAYS, INC.v. HENDERSON, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT.
No. 44.
Argued October 20, 1953.
Decided November 9, 1953.
MR. JUSTICE REED took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
As Judge Woolley explained, there are three kinds of dry docks. (1) A floating dry dock, as its name makes clear, floats on the water, the vessel resting on the bottom of the dry dock after the water has been removed. (2) A graven dry dock is dug into the land. The vessel floats in but rests on land once the water has been pumped out. (3) Finally there is the marine railway, on which the vessel is drawn out of the water, instead of the water being drawn away from the vessel. A ship is no more and no less on land when it rests in a graven dry dock than when it rests on a marine railway. The three types of dry docks are not different in kind; functionally they are the same. And I see no basis for concluding that Congress treated one differently from the others for the purposes of this Act.