Legal Opinion
The Muriel
District Court, W.D. Washington
Decided February 21, 1928No. 12159PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
NETERER, District Judge.
It is sufficient to say that many of these exceptions are questions of fact, to be determined upon the trial, and may not be determined upon this hearing. The exceptions admit the allegations properly pleaded, from which it appears that the petition does state facts sufficient, if true, to limit liability.
Rule 6 of this court provides that, if within the district, the petitioner must verify or affirm the petition; otherwise it may be verified by the agent, or attorney in fact, or proctor, stating the fact of such absence. The petition is verified in harmony with this…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Richardson v. HarmonSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Ex Parte Phenix Insurance CompanySupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- McGill v. Michigan S. S. Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1906
- In re Eastern Dredging Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1905
- The OneidaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1922
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Petition of LieblerDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 1937
- Matter of LowingDistrict Court, W.D. Michigan · 1986
- The EastlandCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1935
- The Trim TooDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1941
- Lehigh Valley R. v. JonesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1931
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.