The Baker Palmer
District Court, D. Massachusetts
In Admiralty. Suit for collision. On libelant’s exceptions to interrogatories propounded in claimant’s answer.
1Opinion of the Court
DODGE, District Judge.
Six of the claimant’s 33 interrogatories are not excepted to, and these the libelants say they are ready to answer. Of the 27 others to which they except, some call for distinct allegations regarding matters about which the libel as hied is not sufficiently .specific. These, which will be identified below, the libelants are clearly bound to answer, as they would have been bound to amend the libel, had exceptions been filed. But the claimant, has the right to go further, than this under rule 32. “Touching any matters alleged in the libel or touching any matter of defense…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Salmon v. The SerapisDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1889
- Havermeyers & Elder Sugar Refining Co. v. Compania Transatlantica EspanolaDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1890
- Eleven Hundred Tons of CoalUnited States Circuit Court · 1882
3Cited by10 opinions
- Coronet Phosphate Co. v. United States Shipping Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1917
- Wolcott v. National Electric Signaling Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1916
- Conners Marine Co. v. Peter F. Connolly Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1940
- Erie & Western Transp. Co. v. Great Lakes Towing Co.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1910
- The CommonwealthDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1923
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.