Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Ralli Vs. Troop

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Apr 01, 1895

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

76 entries 7 linked 69 unlinked
Show
  1. Barnard Vs. Adams US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1850
  2. Fowler Vs. Rathbones US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1870
  3. Hobson Vs. Lord US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1875
  4. Lawrence Vs. Minturn US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1854
  5. Bowditch Vs. Boston US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1879
  6. Mcandrews Vs. Thatcher US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1865
  7. Cutler Vs. Rae US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1849
  8. U.S. 386 (1895) U.S. Supreme Court Ralli v. Troop
    Search
  9. U.S. 386 (1895) Ralli v. Troop
    Search
  10. Hicks v. Palington
    Search
  11. Columbian Ins. Co. v. Ashby
    Search
  12. or expenses so incurred shall be assessed upon all in proportion to the share of each in the adventure. McAndrews v. Thatcher
    Search
  13. adventure is sacrificed solely for the benefit of the rest of the adventure is apparent in those cases. In McAndrews v. Thatcher
    Search
  14. Wall. 70 U. S. 372 . In The Star of Hope and in Fowler v. Rathbones
    Search
  15. the general average allowed was for the loss of the vessel by stranding by the voluntary act of master. See Emery v. Huntington
    Search
  16. Mass. 431, 436. And in Hobson v. Lord
    Search
  17. of the crew while assisting in repairing the injuries suffered by the vessel from such a standing. In Wright v. Marwood
    Search
  18. Q.B.D. 62, 67. In Burton v. English
    Search
  19. The Gratitudine, 3 C.Rob. 240, 257-258, 260. In the case of The Hornet, reported as Lawrence v. Minturn
    Search
  20. Id., 58 U. S. 100 , 58 U. S. 109 -110. See also Dupont v. Vance
    Search
  21. of sacrificing part of the adventure to secure the safety of the rest. Int he leading case of Columbian Ins. Co. v. Ashby
    Search
  22. of the adventure, the master and the owner of the ship are each liable to the owner of the goods sacrificed. Barnard v. Adams
    Search
  23. ship, and the owner of the goods sacrificed has a corresponding lien on what is saved for the amount due him. Cutler v. Rae
    Search
  24. Dupont v. Vance
    Search
  25. Strang v. Scott
    Search
  26. Curt. 340, and 18 How. 59 U. S. 63 . In Price v. Noble
    Search
  27. including the duty of determining her course and speed and the time, place, and manner of anchoring her. Cooley v. Board
    Search
  28. adventure, and has no application to other property on land or to contracts relating to such property. In Welles v. Boston
    Search
  29. Taylor v. Plymouth
    Search
  30. Peters v. Warren
    Search
  31. Abbott on Shipping (11th ed.) 537, note. In Harrison v. Bank
    Search
  32. rule, although there was a difference of opinion as to whether the facts of the case came within it. See also Robinson v. Price
    Search
  33. Liverpool Steam Co. v. Phenix
    Search
  34. He further observed that in Dupont v. Vance
    Search
  35. How. 162, as well as in Lawrence v. Minturn
    Search
  36. After referring to other authorities, he said that in Sturgis v. Cary
    Search
  37. elements which go to entitle the barges to a general average contribution, as state in the leading case of Barnard v. Adams
    Search
  38. in general average. The Star of Hope, 9 Wall. 203, 76 U. S. 227 , 76 U. S. 234 , Gage v. Libby
    Search
  39. Rose v. Bank
    Search
  40. for the purpose of saving ship and cargo, has long been considered a subject of general average. Columbian Ins. Co. v. Ashby
    Search
  41. of Queen's Bench (although any expression of opinion upon the point was avoided in the Exchequer Chamber) in Stewart v. West
    Search
  42. Q.B. 88, 362. And the law of England in that respect has since been settled in accordance with out law. Whitecross Co. v. Savill
    Search
  43. a fire by direction of others than the master or mate of a ship adjudged to be a general average loss. In Nimick v. Holmes
    Search
  44. water were poured into the hold by means of her own apparatus and hose, and that she was afterwards scuttled. In Heye v. North
    Search
  45. German Lloyd, 33 F. 60 and 36 F. 705, also, the fire was extinguished by the officers and crew only. In Gregory v. Orrall
    Search
  46. fire engines used in putting out the fire were apparently employed by the master, and under his control. In Nelson v. Belmont
    Search
  47. of facts, and is rested on the authority of the first opinion of Judge Jenkins in The Roanoke. In Whitecross v. Savill
    Search
  48. Wamsutta Mills v. Old
    Search
  49. of the master or commanding officer of the vessel was in the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in Wamsutta Mills v. Old
    Search
  50. Sun Ins. Co. v. Ocean
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial