Legal Opinion

Hernandez v. Steamship SS Flying Arrow

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided April 23, 1959PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PALMIERI, District Judge.

Of respondent’s three stated exceptions, only one, laches, was argued or briefed by respondent and this memorandum is limited thereto. In determining whether the exceptions should be sustained, the affidavits submitted by the parties, in amplification or contradiction of the facts stated in the libel, may not be considered. The exceptions must be tested against the face of the libel. The *952Sydfold, 2 Cir., 1936, 86 F.2d 611, 612-613; Walle v. Dallett, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1955, 135 F.Supp. 390, 393; Compagnie Generale Transatlantique v. City of New York, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1953, 114…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Redman v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1949
  2. John F. Le Gate, Libelant-Appellant v. The Panamolga, Her Engines, Boilers, Etc., and Compania Naviera Dalmatica, S.A., and Dalmore Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1955
  3. The SydfoldCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1936
  4. Wnuczwnski v. Argonaut Navigation Co.District Court, D. Maryland · 1955
  5. Walle v. DallettDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1955

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Burns v. Marine Transport Lines, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1962
  2. Garland v. The S.S. IlliamnaDistrict Court, D. Alaska · 1961
  3. Rios v. Steamship the Flying CloudDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1959

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API