Inman v. The Lindrup
District Court, D. Minnesota
A libel in rem against the tug Lindrup was filed July 11, 1894, a monition issued, and the vessel seized, according to the marshal’s return, “in the open waters of Lake Superior, about 3,000 feet from the pier at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan.” The St. Mary’s river,-at Sault Ste.
Read the full summary
A libel in rem against the tug Lindrup was filed July 11, 1894, a monition issued, and the vessel seized, according to the marshal’s return, “in the open waters of Lake Superior, about 3,000 feet from the pier at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan.” The St. Mary’s river,-at Sault Ste. Marie, forms the common boundary between the state of Michigan and the dominion of Canada, so that a point 3,000 feet from the pier where the vessel was seized in fact may he within the territorial limits of either Michigan or Canada. Before-the claimant axipeared and filed an answer, a motion was made to discharge the…
1Opinion of the CourtNelson, District Judge
(after stating the facts). It is the locality where the vessel was seized which must determine the jurisdiction of this court over the res in the case at bar. In the view I take of the case, it will be necessary to examine only the question of jurisdiction. It, is urged that this question was settled by Judge Williams upon the motion before him, and is now res adjudí-cala; and, further, that the effort of claimant, to attack the jurisdiction of the court at this time can succeed only by permitting him to dispute and contradict the return of the marshal, which should not be allowed. I do not…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Doolittle v. KnobelochU.S. Circuit Court for the District of South Carolina · 1889
- Pinckney v. The HungariaDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 1889
3Cited by2 opinions
- Suspine v. Compania Transatlantica Centroamericana, S. A.District Court, S.D. New York · 1940
- Caraballo v. Lykes Bros. Steamship Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1962