President of India v. West Coast S.S. Co., 327 F.2d 638 (9th Cir. 1964). · Go Syfert
Search
President of India v. West Coast S.S. Co., 327 F.2d 638 (9th Cir. 1964). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Imperial Commodities Corp. v. Grace Line Inc., 517 F.2d 404 (2d Cir. 1975)
How cited ↗
Cited for
Other citing cases2 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The PRESIDENT OF INDIA, Acting by and Through the DIRECTOR OF the INDIA SUPPLY MISSION, Appellant,
v.
WEST COAST STEAMSHIP COMPANY, an Oregon Corporation, Appellee
18567_1.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
May 4, 1964.
Published opinion
327 F.2d 638
Koerner, Young, McColloch & Dezen-dorf, and John Gordon Gearin, Portland, Or., and 0. Taft Nelson, New York City, for appellant., Mautz, Souther, Spaulding, Kinsey & Williamson, Kenneth E. Roberts and James H. Bruce, Portland, Or., for ap-pellee.
Hamley, Hamlin, Koelsch, Per Curiam.
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

The President of the Republic of India, acting by and through the Director of the India Supply Mission in the United States, appellant herein, brought a libel in admiralty against West Coast Steamship Company, appellee herein, as owner of the S.S. Portland Trader, for damage to cargo which occurred when the vessel ran aground on Tubbataha Reef in the Sulu Sea, Republic of the Philippines, January 5, 1961. The primary contention of libelant was that the vessel was unseaworthy by reason of its not being equipped with either radar or loran. [1] District Judge John F. Kilkenny, in a detailed opinion, 213 F.Supp. 352 (D.Or.1962), found that the vessel was[*639] seaworthy and that the sole cause of the accident was negligent navigation by the master. We think that Judge Kilkenny in his opinion correctly set forth the salient facts, analyzed the issues, and applied the law, and accordingly adopt that opinion as our own.

Judgment affirmed.

1

. Libellant also contended that respondent was negligent in its instructions to the master after it received notification of the accident.