By the terms of a charter agreement between P and the owners of the ship, the steamer was to be docked at least once in every six months, and payment of the hire was to be suspended until she was again in proper state for service. The ship was delivered to D and docked, and while there the propeller was so injured by D's negligence that a new one had to be put in, thus causing the delay. P sued D. D had no notice of P until the delay had begun, but on August 10, 1917, was formally advised by the P that they should hold D liable. P brought its suit upon an allegation that the contract for dry docking between D and the owners 'was made for the benefit of P and was incidental to the aforesaid charter party agreement. The District Court allowed recovery on the ground that P had a 'property right' in the vessel. D appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.