Recent from talks
Swayne & Hoyt
Knowledge base stats:
Talk channels stats:
Members stats:
Swayne & Hoyt
Swayne & Hoyt was an American steamship company based in San Francisco, California, and in operation from the 1890s to 1940.
During its tenure, the company witnessed the opening of the Panama Canal in 1914 and the massive shipbuilding program of World War I orchestrated by the United States Shipping Board which peaked in 1918 and 1919.
In 1850 the ship brokerage firm of Hughes and Hunter was established in San Francisco. In 1865 it became Hughes & McDaniel and, in 1871, Hughes, McDaniel and Edson. In 1873 McDaniel dropped out, in 1879 Hughes dropped out. The company continued as C. A. Edson & Co. Robert H. Swayne and John C. Hoyt, former employees, took over business in 1887.
Swayne & Hoyt was engaged in trade with Japan by 1896, when the company was recorded as protesting duties assessed on ceramic goods it had imported in February 1896.
Swayne & Hoyt was incorporated in August 1896 as a warehouse, commission and mercantile business in the state of California with principal area of business in San Francisco, with a capital stock of $100,000 of which $25,000 had been actually subscribed.
On February 27, 1897, the S&H warehouse was the scene of the "biggest opium seizure in California" ($200,000 of Chinese opium).
In 1926, the company was operating the American-Australian-Orient Line which sailed to Australia, New Zealand, and Asian ports. Also in the mid-1920s, Swayne & Hoyt was engaged in trade between Pacific ports and the east coast of South America.
By the late 1930s, Swayne & Hoyt was engaged in intercoastal shipping between U.S. ports on the Gulf of Mexico and on ports on the Pacific coast via the Panama Canal. Swayne & Hoyt v. United States challenged the legality of an order of the Secretary of Commerce to cease offering 6-month contracts to clients at a reduced rate if the clients only use the same shipping company for all their shipping during that period. The case was dismissed on the ground that Section 16 of the Shipping Act of 1916 forbids preferential treatment of any kind and that the arrangement violates unrestricted competition and furthers the establishment of a monopoly. The court conceded though that the arrangement had benefits to both the suing shipowners and their clients.
Hub AI
Swayne & Hoyt AI simulator
(@Swayne & Hoyt_simulator)
Swayne & Hoyt
Swayne & Hoyt was an American steamship company based in San Francisco, California, and in operation from the 1890s to 1940.
During its tenure, the company witnessed the opening of the Panama Canal in 1914 and the massive shipbuilding program of World War I orchestrated by the United States Shipping Board which peaked in 1918 and 1919.
In 1850 the ship brokerage firm of Hughes and Hunter was established in San Francisco. In 1865 it became Hughes & McDaniel and, in 1871, Hughes, McDaniel and Edson. In 1873 McDaniel dropped out, in 1879 Hughes dropped out. The company continued as C. A. Edson & Co. Robert H. Swayne and John C. Hoyt, former employees, took over business in 1887.
Swayne & Hoyt was engaged in trade with Japan by 1896, when the company was recorded as protesting duties assessed on ceramic goods it had imported in February 1896.
Swayne & Hoyt was incorporated in August 1896 as a warehouse, commission and mercantile business in the state of California with principal area of business in San Francisco, with a capital stock of $100,000 of which $25,000 had been actually subscribed.
On February 27, 1897, the S&H warehouse was the scene of the "biggest opium seizure in California" ($200,000 of Chinese opium).
In 1926, the company was operating the American-Australian-Orient Line which sailed to Australia, New Zealand, and Asian ports. Also in the mid-1920s, Swayne & Hoyt was engaged in trade between Pacific ports and the east coast of South America.
By the late 1930s, Swayne & Hoyt was engaged in intercoastal shipping between U.S. ports on the Gulf of Mexico and on ports on the Pacific coast via the Panama Canal. Swayne & Hoyt v. United States challenged the legality of an order of the Secretary of Commerce to cease offering 6-month contracts to clients at a reduced rate if the clients only use the same shipping company for all their shipping during that period. The case was dismissed on the ground that Section 16 of the Shipping Act of 1916 forbids preferential treatment of any kind and that the arrangement violates unrestricted competition and furthers the establishment of a monopoly. The court conceded though that the arrangement had benefits to both the suing shipowners and their clients.
Recent media