Luckenbach v. Pierson
United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
229 F. 130 (1915)
- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Lewis Luckenbach (plaintiff) owned the steamship Harry Luckenbach and chartered the vessel to Ralph Pierson & Co. (defendant). The charter was a time charter for a term of 10 months that began in January 1906. The charter agreement included a withdrawal provision that allowed Luckenbach to withdraw the ship from Pierson’s service if Pierson defaulted on the payments for the charter. By June of 1906, Pierson was in default on the charter payments. On June 27, Luckenbach sent a first letter to Pierson threatening to withdraw the ship on an unspecified date. Luckenbach then sent a second letter on June 30 that stated that the ship would be withdrawn when the ship completed its present voyage and its cargo was unloaded. The cargo was unloaded in port on July 16, and Luckenbach withdrew the ship. By that time Pierson had attempted to tender the amount in arrears plus interest, but Luckenbach refused to accept it. The issue of outstanding liabilities owed by each party under the charter came before federal district court. The court held that Luckenbach had been in the wrong to make the withdrawal of the vessel after Pierson had attempted to tender payment. The court awarded Luckenbach the outstanding charter amount prior to the withdrawal but also awarded Pierson damages for the wrongful withdrawal. Luckenbach appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ward, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.