Legal Opinion
Schoening v. Shipment of 102 Jute Bags
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided March 11, 1955No. 55PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LORD, District Judge.
Respondents have filed peremptory exceptions to the libel for the reasons that:
1. This Court has no admiralty jurisdiction of the subject matter.
2. The facts alleged are insufficient to constitute a cause of action.
We will consider the jurisdictional problem first, for if this Court has no jurisdiction in the matter, any other questions need not be considered.
The libel alleges that 102 bags of asbestos belonging to libellant were tortiously removed by respondent J. Schoening from a warehouse in Pennsylvania and subsequently shipped on the high seas on a ship owned by the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Strika v. Netherlands Ministry of Traffic, Directorate General of ShippingCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1950
- United States v. Matson Nav. Co. The Louie IIICourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1953
- Forgione v. United States Nicastro v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1953
3Cited by6 opinions
- Evergreen Marine Corp. v. Six Consignments of Frozen ScallopsCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1993
- David Crystal, Inc. v. Cunard Steam-Ship CompanyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1963
- Litwinowicz v. Weyerhaeuser Steamship CompanyDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1959
- American Hawaiian Ventures, Inc. v. LatuharharyDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1966
- Richard H. Clinton v. Joshua Hendy CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1960
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.