Legal Opinion

The Comanche

District Court, W.D. Washington

Decided December 8, 1922No. 7084PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtNeterer, District Judge

(after stating the facts as above).

The respondent contends that under Admiralty Rule 56 it has a right to this proceeding, and the claimant contends that, there being but one cause of action before the court, and the claimant having filed its bond as provided by law and court rule to satisfy any decree of the court, the vessel for all purposes was before the court at the time of the rearrest, and that there is no warrant of law for such proceeding. It is obvious from the record that no new party ha.s been brought in. Rule 56 provides that “the claimant or respondent (as the case may be) shall…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. The William F. McRaeDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 1885
  2. The NahorDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1881
  3. The EpsomDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 1915
  4. The Julia LuckenbachDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1912

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. JK Welding Co. v. Gotham Marine CorporationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1931

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API