From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Monticello Tobacco Co., Inc. v. Am. Tobacco Co.

U.S.
Nov 10, 1952
344 U.S. 875 (1952)

Summary

holding that a stevedore, as an agent of the carrier performing the carrier's obligation, was entitled to a $500 per package limitation in the carrier's bill of lading because this limitation, while extending expressly only to the carrier, was not personal to the carrier

Summary of this case from Tessler Brothers

Opinion

No. 339.

November 10, 1952.


DECISIONS PER CURIAM ETC.

C.A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Philip Handelman and Walter H. Schulman for petitioner. Horace G. Hitchcock for the American Tobacco Co. et al.; and Bethuel M. Webster and Francis H. Horan for Liggett Myers Tobacco Co. et al., respondents. Reported below: 197 F. 2d 629.


Summaries of

Monticello Tobacco Co., Inc. v. Am. Tobacco Co.

U.S.
Nov 10, 1952
344 U.S. 875 (1952)

holding that a stevedore, as an agent of the carrier performing the carrier's obligation, was entitled to a $500 per package limitation in the carrier's bill of lading because this limitation, while extending expressly only to the carrier, was not personal to the carrier

Summary of this case from Tessler Brothers

finding a patent holder that contracted with an independent fabricator to be a “manufacturer” for purposes of an excise tax

Summary of this case from Nat'l Ass'n of Mfrs. v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n
Case details for

Monticello Tobacco Co., Inc. v. Am. Tobacco Co.

Case Details

Full title:MONTICELLO TOBACCO CO., INC. v. AMERICAN TOBACCO Co. ET AL

Court:U.S.

Date published: Nov 10, 1952

Citations

344 U.S. 875 (1952)

Citing Cases

Rank v. United States

The Court prefers, however, not to use those terms as there is nothing in the Rules or in the history of…

Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp.

Adv. Comm. Notes 697; cf. 1 Newberg § 4.09, at 4-33 ("Classic" limited fund class actions "include claimants…