Legal Opinion
Defense Plant Corp. v. United States Barge Lines, Inc.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided November 27, 1944PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CAFFEY, District Judge.
I think there are several reasons why ;the motion should not be granted. Two of these, each of which seems to me sufficient, will be stated.
I. On January 19 or 22, 1944, the respondent was adjudicated a bankrupt by the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. At the time, so far as the papers disclose, no proceeding with respect to an alleged bottomrylien had been instituted by either movant. The notice of motion before me is dated March 25, 1944, — more than two months subsequent to the adjudication. As I view the matter, by force of the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Isaacs v. Hobbs Tie & Timber Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Straton v. NewSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
- The PhilomenaDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1911
- The CascoDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1916
- Standard Oil Co. v. Defense Plant Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1944
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Morgan Guaranty Trust Co. v. Hellenic Lines Ltd.District Court, S.D. New York · 1984
- Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Good Hope Refineries, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1979
- Barnes v. The "Kongo"Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1949
- Atlantic Richfield Company v. Good Hope RefineriesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1979