Legal Opinion
Mayer & Lage, Inc. v. Prince Line, Ltd.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided March 3, 1920No. 558PublishedCited by 6 opinions
In Admiralty. Libel by Mayer & Lage, Incorporated, against the Prince Line, Limited, with cross-libel by the Prince Line against Mayer & Lage, Incorporated. On motion to require security and stay proceedings until security is given.
1Opinion of the Court
AUGUSTUS N. HAND, District Judge.
I have allowed the respondent to file an answer, which it designates as an amended answer and cross-libel, asking for affirmative relief. The Supreme Court, in The Sapphire, 85 U. S. (18 Wall.) at page 56, 21 L. Ed. 814, said:
“We do not say that a cross-libel is always necessary, in a case of collision, in order to enable claimants of an offending vessel to set off or recoup the damages sustained by such vessels, if both be found in fault.”
Judge Hough, in United Transp. & Lighterage Co. v. New York & Baltimore Transp. Line (D. C.) 180 Fed. 902, said in a…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Bowker v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1902
- The" Dove"Supreme Court of the United States · 1876
- The SapphireSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- United Transp. & Lighterage Co. v. New York & Baltimore Transp. LineDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1910
- Ward v. ChamberlainSupreme Court of the United States · 1859
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Patterson Oil Terminals, Inc. v. The Port Covington the Girard PointCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1953
- Compania De Remorque Y Salvamento, S. A. v. Esperance, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1951
- Hildebrand v. Geneva Mill Co.District Court, M.D. Alabama · 1929
- Cioffi v. New Zealand Shipping Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1947
- Kahnweiler v. PfitschDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1923
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.