Case Name: CENTRAL ELEVATOR CO. OF BALTIMORE CITY v. NAAM LOOZE VENNOOT SCHAP, S. S. WILLEM VAN DRIEL, SR. THE WILLEM VAN DRIEL, SR. THE WELBECK HALL
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1920-01-20
Citations: 264 F. 102
Docket Number: Nos. 1771-1774
Parties: CENTRAL ELEVATOR CO. OF BALTIMORE CITY v. NAAM LOOZE VENNOOT SCHAP, S. S. WILLEM VAN DRIEL, SR. THE WILLEM VAN DRIEL, SR. THE WELBECK HALL.
Judges: Before PRITCHARD, KNAPP, and WOODS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 264
Pages: 102–102

Head Matter:
CENTRAL ELEVATOR CO. OF BALTIMORE CITY v. NAAM LOOZE VENNOOT SCHAP, S. S. WILLEM VAN DRIEL, SR. THE WILLEM VAN DRIEL, SR. THE WELBECK HALL.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
January 20, 1920.)
Nos. 1771-1774.
Admiralty <&wkey; 118 — Questions raised on appeal held previously adjudicated.
Decrees affirmed on the ground that all questions raised were determined on former appeals and that the decrees were in conformity with such decisions.
Appeals irom the District Court of the United States for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore; John C. Rose, Judge.
Suits by the Naam Looze Yennoot Schap, S. S. Willem Van Driel, Sr., a corporation, owner of the steamship Willem Van Driel, Sr., and by Edwin Dyason, master of the steamship Welbeck Hall and bailee of her cargo, against the Central Elevator Company of Baltimore City and the Pennsylvania Railroad Company. From the decrees, the Elevator Company and the Railroad Company separately appeal.
Affirmed.
See, also, 242 Fed. 285; 261 Fed. 269,-C. C. A.-; 261 Fed. 274,-C. C. A.-.
Shirley Carter, of Baltimore, Md. (Bernard Carter & Sons, of Baltimore, Md., on the brief), for appellants.
Charles R. Hickox, of New York City (Kirlin, Woolsey & Hickox, of New York City, and Janney, Stuart & Ober, on the briefs), for appellee corporation.
James K. Symmers, of New York City (Barry, Wainwright, Thacher & Symmers, of New York City, and Harry N. Abercrombie, of Baltimore, Md., on the briefs), for appellee Dyason.
Before PRITCHARD, KNAPP, and WOODS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Motions were made in these causes to dismiss or affirm on the ground that all questions mentioned in the assignments of error had been decided in the former appeals. These motions and the appeals themselves were heard at the same time.
The motions are refused, without costs, in order that the appellants may have the benefit of formal decrees of this court in any applications they may make and in any proceedings they may institute to have their cases passed on by the Supreme Court.
Upon examination of the records we find that all questions made in the assignments of error were involved and decided in the former appeals, and that the decrees of the District Court have been entered in precise accordance with the instructions contained in the decrees of this court.
The decrees of the District Court are therefore affirmed, and the decrees of this court will be entered accordingly.
Affirmed.