Legal Opinion

The Anna R. Heidritter

District Court, D. Massachusetts

Decided April 3, 1923No. 1839PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PETERS, District Judge.

This matter was heard on the petition of Crowell & Thurlow to intervene for their interest in the sum of money realized from the sale of this schooner by order of court and now deposited in the registry. To this and other claims against the vessel, or the proceeds of its sale, aggregating something more than the amount realized, the owners make no defense. Other claimants defend this petition.

I find the following facts pertinent to the issue:

Crowell & Thurlow are shipbrokers and ship agents, of Boston. They were not the general agents of this vessel, nor did they act in…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Piedmont & Georges Creek Coal Co. v. Seaboard Fisheries Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1920
  2. Spice v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1922
  3. The PuritanDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1919
  4. The AvalonDistrict Court, N.D. West Virginia · 1909
  5. The Maud PalmerDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1915

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. The MaretCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1944
  2. The Minnie & EmmaDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1927
  3. The MaretCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1944

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

Powered by the Exa API