Legal Opinion
The Valmar
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided May 5, 1941No. 13PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
38 F.Supp. 615 (1941)
THE VALMAR.
CELIO
v.
JONES.
No. 13.
District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.
May 5, 1941.
Freedman & Goldstein, of Philadelphia, Pa., for libelant.
Howard M. Long, of Philadelphia, Pa., for respondent.
KALODNER, District Judge.
General Admiralty Rule 2 provides that: "In suits in personam the mesne process shall be by a simple monition in the nature of a summons to appear and answer to the suit * * * with a clause therein to attach his [respondent's] goods and chattels * * * if said respondent shall not be found within the district. * * *" 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723.
The instant…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Atkins v. Disintegrating Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1874
- American Potato Corp. v. Boca Grande S. S. Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1916
- Shewan v. HallenbeckDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1906
- The AthanasiosDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1915
- Celio v. JonesDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1941
3Cited by4 opinions
- Seawind Compania, S. A. v. Crescent Line, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1963
- Seawind Compania, S.A. v. Crescent Line, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1963
- D/SA/S FLINT v. Sabre Shipping CorporationDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1964
- Federazione Italiana Dei Consorzi Agrari v. Mandask Compania De Vapores, S.A.District Court, S.D. New York · 1957