Legal Opinion

Bennett v. Waterman SS Corporation

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided October 5, 1939PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

COXE, District Judge.

This motion is similar to the ones considered in Kenealy v. Texas Company, D. C., 29 F.Supp. 502, and in Fluxgold v. United States Lines Company, D.C., 29 F.Supp. 506, and will be disposed of as indicated in the opinions in those cases. There is, however, an added item not found in the motion papers of the other cases asking for the production for inspection of the following: “All statements made by witnesses and any and all persons to the insurance company as to the manner of the happening of the accident”.

The objection of the defendants to the production of these…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Fluxgold v. United States Lines Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1939

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Stark v. American Dredging Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1943
  2. French v. Zalstem-ZalesskyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1940
  3. State v. Pan-American Bus Lines, Inc.District Court, D. Maryland · 1940
  4. Gitto v. "Italia", Societa Anonima Di NavigazioneDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1940

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

Powered by the Exa API