Russell Boaz, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross v. Marine Co. of Florida, Inc., Defendant-Appellee-Cross, 423 F.2d 1220 (5th Cir. 1970). · Go Syfert
Search
Russell Boaz, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross v. Marine Co. of Florida, Inc., Defendant-Appellee-Cross, 423 F.2d 1220 (5th Cir. 1970). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Russell BOAZ, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross Appellee,
v.
MARINE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, INC., Defendant-Appellee-Cross Appellant
27867.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Mar 30, 1970.
423 F.2d 1220
1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 10082
William Lewis, Jr., Smathers & Thompson, Miami, Fla., for appellantappellee., Frank J. Marston, Fowler, White, Collins, Gillen, Humkey & Trenam, Miami, Fla., for appellee-appellant.
Bell, Simpson.
Published
PER CURIAM:

Suit was commenced by plaintiff Boaz against defendant Marine Company to recover damages resulting from the loss of plaintiff’s sailing yacht while being towed from Cozumel, Mexico to Fort Lauderdale, Florida by defendant. The complaint was premised on the alleged negligence of the defendant. Defendant counterclaimed for $3,000.00 which it alleged was the balance due on the agreed consideration for the tow.

The district court concluded, after a non-jury trial, that the proximate cause of the loss was the inadequacy of the temporary repairs made to the yacht at Cozumel, Mexico, prior to the tow. The court also concluded that defendant, under the agreement, was not to be paid the balance due on the towing contract absent successful completion of the tow. Judgment was accordingly entered in favor of the defendant on the main claim, and in favor of plaintiff on the counterclaim.

This is a fact case. The facts of record amply support the findings and conclusions entered by the district court. There the matter ends under the clearly erroneous rule. McAllister v. United States, 348 U.S. 19, 75 S.Ct. 6, 99 L.Ed. 20 (1954).

Affirmed.