Legal Opinion
Defense Plant Corporation v. United States Barge Lines
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided November 27, 1944No. 118PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FRANK, Circuit Judge.
1. Intervention is permissible in an admiralty suit only if (a) the suit is in rem (Admiralty Rule 34, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723) or (b) the intervenor has an interest in proceeds in the registry of the court (Admiralty Rule 42). The admiralty suit here was in personam with a claim for foreign attachment; the garnishment did not convert the suit into one in rem. Brown v. C. D. Mallory & Co., 3 Cir., 122 F.2d 98, 104. For Admiralty Rule 36 does not require the garnishee to pay into the registry of the court but permits the garnisheed debts or credits to remain in…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Brown v. C. D. Mallory & Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1941
- United States v. Northern Securities Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota · 1904
- Cincinnati, I. & W. R. v. Indianapolis Union Ry. Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1922
- Baltimore Trust Co. v. Interocean Oil Co.District Court, D. Maryland · 1939
3Cited by15 opinions
- Morgan Guaranty Trust Co. v. Hellenic Lines Ltd.District Court, S.D. New York · 1984
- Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Good Hope Refineries, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1979
- United States v. Maryland Casualty Company, United States of America v. Hibernia National Bank in New OrleansCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1956
- J. G. Jackson and J. G. Jackson, Jr., Intervenors v. Inland Oil and Transport Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1963
- L. W. & P. Armstrong, Inc. v. The MormacmarCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1952
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.