Legal Opinion

Conners Marine Co. v. Peter F. Connolly Co.

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided October 31, 1940PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

LEIBELL, District Judge.

Libellant moves for an order sustaining its objections to certain interrogatories propounded to libellant and annexed to respondent’s answer herein. The allegations of the libel and the answer are well summarized in the following extract from respondent’s brief:. The libellant alleges that on the morning of November 9, 1939, the tug “Arthur Conners” was proceeding down the Raritan River with the scow “Williani D. McCoy” in tow. That the respondent had engaged in the construction of a bridge across the *776Raritan River and had erected certain piers in said river. It is…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Coronet Phosphate Co. v. United States Shipping Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1917
  2. Chandler v. Cutler-Hammer, Inc.District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1940
  3. Dunleer Co. v. Minter Homes CorporationDistrict Court, S.D. West Virginia · 1940
  4. The Baker PalmerDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1908
  5. Bock v. International Nav. Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1903

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. American S.S. Co. v. Buckeye S.S. Co.District Court, W.D. New York · 1941
  2. Cargo Carriers, Inc. v. The ProspectDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 1942
  3. Citro Chemical Co. of America v. Bank Line Ltd.District Court, S.D. New York · 1941
  4. The J. L. Jr.District Court, E.D. New York · 1945
  5. Finlay v. EvelethDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1945

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

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

Powered by the Exa API