Case Name: SUN OIL COMPANY, as owner of the M.V. Atlantic Sun, Libellant-Appellee, v. The S.S. GEORGEL, her engines, boilers, etc., v. CENTRAL NAVIGATION CORPORATION OF MONROVIA, Respondent-Appellant; CENTRAL NAVIGATION CORPORATION OF MONROVIA, as owner of the S.S. Georgel, Cross-Libellant-Appellant, v. The M.V. ATLANTIC SUN, her engines, boilers, etc., v. SUN OIL COMPANY, Cross-Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1966-12-20
Citations: 369 F.2d 406
Docket Number: No. 61, Docket 30084
Parties: SUN OIL COMPANY, as owner of the M.V. Atlantic Sun, Libellant-Appellee, v. The S.S. GEORGEL, her engines, boilers, etc., v. CENTRAL NAVIGATION CORPORATION OF MONROVIA, Respondent-Appellant. CENTRAL NAVIGATION CORPORATION OF MONROVIA, as owner of the S.S. Georgel, Cross-Libellant-Appellant, v. The M.V. ATLANTIC SUN, her engines, boilers, etc., v. SUN OIL COMPANY, Cross-Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 369
Pages: 406–406

Head Matter:
SUN OIL COMPANY, as owner of the M.V. Atlantic Sun, Libellant-Appellee, v. The S.S. GEORGEL, her engines, boilers, etc., v. CENTRAL NAVIGATION CORPORATION OF MONROVIA, Respondent-Appellant. CENTRAL NAVIGATION CORPORATION OF MONROVIA, as owner of the S.S. Georgel, Cross-Libellant-Appellant, v. The M.V. ATLANTIC SUN, her engines, boilers, etc., v. SUN OIL COMPANY, Cross-Respondent-Appellee.
No. 61, Docket 30084.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Argued Nov. 28, 1966.
Decided Dec. 20, 1966.
Alfred A. Lohne, New York City (Mendes & Mount, and Brendan J. Connolly, New York City, on the brief), for libellant-cross-respondent-appellee.
James D. Hanlon, New York City (Zock, Petrie, Sheneman & Reid, and John R. Sheneman, New York City, on the brief), for respondent-cross-libellant-appellant.
Before FRIENDLY, SMITH and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The findings in Judge Levet's careful and thorough opinion were fully supported by the evidence and there was no error in the conclusions of law. The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.