Citation network
Constable Vs. National Steamship Co.
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 26, 1894
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
-
Constable v. NationalSearch
-
Steamship Co. - 154 U.S. 51 (1894) U.S. Supreme Court Constable v. NationalSearch
-
Steamship Co., 154 U.S. 51 (1894) Constable v. NationalSearch
-
The Eddy, 5 Wall. 481, and is in conformity with the great weight of English and American authority. Hyde v. TrentSearch
-
Gibson v. CulverSearch
-
within the meaning of section 4282, even though the fire extended to and did some damage to the vessel. Morewood v. PollokSearch
-
after the discharge of the cargo, by special stipulation to that effect in the bill of lading. Thus, in York Co. v. CentralSearch
-
protect the carrier if the fire were not occasioned by any want of due care on his part. See also 47 U. S. Co. v. Merchants'Search
-
Railroad Co. v. ManufacturingSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Phoenix Ins. Co. v. ErieSearch
-
happening on board the vessel, but to fires occurring to the goods while on the wharf awaiting transportation. Scott v. BaltimoreSearch
-
the custom and usage of the port, and such delivery will discharge the carrier of his responsibility. Thus, in Dixon v. DunhamSearch
-
So also, in Gatliffe v. BourneSearch
-
Farmers' & Mechanics' Bank v. ChamplainSearch
-
Richmond v. UnionSearch
-
The Boston, 1 Lowell 464. In The Sultana v. ChapmanSearch
-
In Gleadlee v. ThompsonSearch
-
In Collins v. BurnsSearch
-
defendants was that of warehousemen, and therefore that they were responsible only for negligence. So in Tarbell v. RoyalSearch
-
Davis v. GarrettSearch
-
Williams v. GrantSearch
-
where a ship bound from New York to Norwich, Conn., went outside of Long Island and lost her cargo in a storm, Crosby v. FitchSearch
-
a carrier is guilty of unnecessary delay in pursuing a voyage, or in the transportation of goods by rail, Michaels v. N.YSearch
-
trade, it neither avoids a policy of insurance nor subjects the carrier to the responsibility of an insurer. Oliver v. MarylandSearch
-
Columbian Ins. Co. v. CatlettSearch
-
Wheat. 383. In Hostetter v. ParkSearch
-
it having been shown that such delays were within the general and established usage of the trade. So, in Gracie v. MarineSearch
-
Phelps v. HillSearch
-
liable notwithstanding the stipulation against the consequence of negligence in its bill of lading. Railroad Co. v. LockwoodSearch
-
Price v. TorringtonSearch
-
Champneys v. PeckSearch
-
Pritt v. FaircloughSearch
-
Doe v. TurfordSearch
-
Dana v. KembleSearch
-
a universal rule that a person may sue upon a contract made for his benefit to which he was not a party. Hendricks v. LindsaySearch
-
National Bank v. GrandSearch
-
against his own interest, without the consent of the other. As observed by the Court of Appeals of New York in Simson v. BrownSearch
-
National Bank v. GrandSearch
-
Garnsey v. RogersSearch
-
N.Y. 233. The principle above announced was still further limited by the Court of Appeals in Vrooman v. TurnerSearch
-
officer under color of his office cannot be enforced, and the remarks of this Court in the case of United States v. TingeySearch
-
for which there is no statutory authority. In this latter case, the bond has been held to be valid. United States v. BradleySearch
-
Morewood v. PollokSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Constable v. NationalSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial