美国哈佛大学研究生入学考试题——船舶碰撞.docVIP

308 U.S. 378, *; 60 S. Ct. 332, **; 84 L. Ed. 335, ***; 1940 U.S. LEXIS 1076  POSTAL STEAMSHIP CORP. v. EL ISLEO ** Together with No. 74, Postal Steamship Corp. v. Southern Pacific Co., also on writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. No. 73 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 308 U.S. 378; 60 S. Ct. 332; 84 L. Ed. 335; 1940 U.S. LEXIS 1076 December 12, 1939, Argued January 2, 1940, Decided PRIOR HISTORY: CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT.CERTIORARI, post, p. 532, to review the affirmance of decrees of the District Court, in admiralty, 20 F.Supp. 373, which dismissed a libel brought by the present petitioner and awarded damages to the respondent, in a collision case. DISPOSITION: 101 F.2d 4, reversed. CASE SUMMARY PROCEDURAL POSTURE: By writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, petitioner owner of a steamer sought review of the affirmance of decrees in admiralty that dismissed a libel brought by petitioner and awarded damages to respondent owner of a steamer in a collision case.OVERVIEW: Petitioners steamer collided with respondents steamer, and the parties each filed libels against the vessels of the other. The District Court found that petitioners steamer was solely at fault, and thus, decrees dismissing petitioners suit and awarding damages to respondent were affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Upon review, the court held that because the Court of Appeals did not consider the conduct of respondents steamer in light of the requirements of Supervising Inspectors Rules II and VII, but improperly thought, under the compulsion of former decisions, that it had to disregard such requirements, the causes had to be returned to the Court of Appeals for consideration of such rules in light of Article 27 of the Inland Rules, established by the Act of June 7, 1897, Arts. 19, 21-23, 27, 30 Stat. 101, 102; 33 U.S.C.S. Ё 204, 206-208, 212. The court determined that