green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
6.2 score
“a structure under construction remains a non-vessel until it is complete and ready for duty upon the sea”
Treatment trajectory · 1925 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1925
1975
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Transocean Enterprise, Inc. v. Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc.
a structure under construction remains a non-vessel until it is complete and ready for duty upon the sea
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
The Boat La Sambra, No. Cf 8760 Ax, Her Engine, Tackle, Apparel and Furniture, and K. Reafsynder v. Edward Lewis, Doing Business Under the Fictitious Name and Style of Newport Marine Radio, the Boat Beany, No. Cf 8761 Ax, Her Engine, Tackle, Apparel and Furniture, and Abe Diamond v. Edward Lewis, Doing Business Under the Fictitious Name and Style of Newport Marine Radio
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the libel for lack of jurisdiction, saying, "When received by appellant the schooner was manifestly incomplete — her masts were not in, the bolts and beams and gaff were lying on deck, the forward house was not built, and she was not `in condition to carry on any service.' [Id. at 243, 41 S.Ct. 65 ] * * * Notwith-standing possible and once not inappropriate criticism, the doctrine is now firmly established that contracts to construct entirely new ships are non-maritime because not nearly enough related to any rights and duties pertain…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
The Boat LA Sambra v. Lewis
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the libel for lack of jurisdiction, saying, “When received by appellant the schooner was manifestly incomplete — her masts were not in, the bolts and beams and gaff were lying on deck, the forward house was not built, and she was not ‘in condition to carry on any service.’ [Id. at 243, 41 S.Ct. 65 ] * * * Notwithstanding possible and once not inappropriate criticism, the doctrine is now firmly established that contracts to construct entirely new ships are non-maritime because not nearly enough related to any rights and duties …
cited
Cited "see"
Warmack v. Direct Workforce Inc.
See The Francis McDonald, 254 U.S. 242, 244-245 , 41 S.Ct. 65 , 65 L.Ed. 245 (1920).
discussed
Cited "see"
Cain v. Transocean Offshore USA, Inc.
(2×)
See The Francis McDonald, 254 U.S. 242, 243-44 , 41 S.Ct. 65 , 65 L.Ed. 245 (1920) (holding in a contract case that shipbuilding has been considered a nonmaritime activity, whether or not the incomplete ship has been launched).
discussed
Cited "see"
Goudy & Stevens, Inc. v. Cable Marine, Inc.
(2×)
See Thames Towboat Co. v. The Schooner “Francis McDonald,” 254 U.S. 242 , 41 S.Ct. 65 , 65 L.Ed.2d 245 (1920).
cited
Cited "see"
Hatteras of Lauderdale, Inc. v. Gemini Lady
See Thames Towboat, 254 U.S. at 245 , 41 S.Ct. at 66 .
cited
Cited "see"
Zelaskowski v. Johns-Manville Corp.
See The Francis McDonald,, 254 U.S. 242, 244-45 , 41 S.Ct. 65, 66 , 65 L.Ed. 245 (1920), North Pacific Steamship Co. v. Hall Brothers Co., 249 U.S. 119, 128 , 39 S.Ct. 221, 223 , 63 L.Ed. 510 (1919).
cited
Cited "see"
Jeffcott v. ætna Ins. Co.
See Thames Towboat Co. v. The Francis McDonald, 254 U.S. 242, 244 , 41 S.Ct. 65 , 65 L.Ed. 245 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Berge Helene Ltd. v. GE Oil & Gas, Inc.
See, e.g., Thames Towboat, 254 U.S. at 243 , 41 S.Ct. 65 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Umpqua Marine Ways, Inc. v. The United States
She acquires a personality of her own; becomes competent to contract, and is individually liable for her obligations; upon which she may sue in the name of her owner, and be sued in her own name.” Tucker v. Alexandroff 183 U.S. 424, 438 , 22 S.Ct. 195, 201 , 46 L.Ed. 264 (1902); see also Thames Towboat Co. v. The “Francis MacDonald”, 254 U.S. 242, 244 , 41 S.Ct. 65, 66 , 65 L.Ed. 245 (1920) (if vessel is not yet seaworthy, completion is new construction rather than repair or conversion); Northwest Marine Iron Works v. United States, 493 F.2d 652, 656 , 203 Ct.Cl. 629 (1974).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc., and Aetna Casualty & Surety Company v. Herbert L. Perdue and Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc., and Aetna Casualty & Surety Company v. Charles W. Skipper and Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, P. C. Pfeiffer Company and Texas Employers' Insurance Association v. Diverson Ford and Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, Halter Marine Fabricators, Inc., and Fidelity & Casualty of New York v. John L. Nulty and Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, Ayers Steamship Company and Texas Employers' Insurance Association v. Will Bryant and Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor
Compare note 24, supra 26 See, e. g., Thames Towboat Co. v. The Francis McDonald, 254 U.S. 242, 243 , 41 S.Ct. 65 , 65 L.Ed. 245 (1920) 27 See, e. g., Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, 409 U.S. 249 , 93 S.Ct. 493 , 34 L.Ed.2d 454 (1972) 28 Art.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc. v. Perdue
See, e. g., Thames Towboat Co. v. The Francis McDonald, 254 U.S. 242, 243 , 41 S.Ct. 65 , 65 L.Ed. 245 (1920). .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Great Western Serum Company
v.
United States
v.
United States
90.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Dec 6, 1920.
Mr. Edwiii H. Cassels, with whom Mr. Japi.es H Wilkerson and Mr. Eaward F. Colladay were on the briefs, for appellant., Mr.. Assistant Attorney General -Darns, with whom Mr.Charles H.. Bradley, Special. Assistant to the Attorney General, was on the brief, for the United States.
McReynolds.
Published
Citer courts: Mississippi Supreme Court (1)
Me. Justice McReynolds
delivered the opinion of the court.
The Serum Company sued to recover the value of. anti-hog-cholera serum, anti-cholera virus and serum blood,seized without agreement to purchase by agents of the Bureau of Animal Industry in November, 1914, and thereafter destroyed. Judgment went for the defendant and we are asked to reverse it upon the ground that “as a conclusion of law the court should have found that the Act of Congress of March 4, 1915, created an obligation to pay for appellant’s materials, and that the facts show an implied contract to purchase and to pay for such materials.” The act provides:
“In case of an emergency arising but of the existence of foot-and-mouth disease, rinderpest, contagious pleuropneumonia, or other contagious, or infectious disease of animals, which in the opinion of the Secretary of Agriculture threatens the live-stock industry of the country, he may expend in the city of Washington or elsewhere, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of $2,500,000, which sum is hereby appropriated, or so much thereof as he determines to be necessary, in the arrest and eradication of any such disease, including the payment of claims growing out of past and future purchases and destruction, in cooperation with the States, of animals affected by or exposed to, or of materials contaminated by or exposed to, any such disease, wherever found and irrespective of ownership, under like- or substantially similar circumstances, when such owner has complied with all quarantine regulations, and said sum shall be immediately available for the purposes specified.” 38 Stat. 1115.
[*242] There was no purchase of the destroyed articles or agreement therefor — none is claimed — and we think it quite clear that no contractual obligation by the United States to pay for them can be implied from the act itself.
The judgment below must be
Affirmed.