Legal Opinion

Molinos v. The Rio Grande

District Court, E.D. Virginia

Decided February 25, 1955No. 197PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HOFFMAN, District Judge.

The primary question involved in this stage of the proceeding in this action involving essentially a seaman’s claim for wages and overtime under the Labor Code of Panama in which the respondents allege that the seaman libellant deserted the vessel and hence the earned wages are forfeited under the Panamanian Law is as follows:

Where the respondents (shipowner) seek to take a deposition de bene esse in New York, should proctors for libellant (seaman) be allowed expenses incident to attending a deposition as a condition *27precedent to the taking of such deposition and, if…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Gibson v. International Freighting CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1949
  2. Mercado v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1950
  3. Pero v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1945
  4. Pacific Mail S. S. Co. v. IversonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1907
  5. Weel v. United StatesDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1946

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Estate of Darling v. Atlantic Contracting Corp.District Court, E.D. Virginia · 1957
  2. Jaco v. WinCo Holdings, Inc.District Court, E.D. California · 2022

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

Powered by the Exa API