Baxter v. The Dona Fermoas

S.D. New York

Baxter v. The Dona Fermoas

2 F. Cas. 1048, 1858 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35

DecidedMay 14, 1858

StatusPublished

This text of 2 F. Cas. 1048 (Baxter v. The Dona Fermoas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baxter v. The Dona Fermoas, 2 F. Cas. 1048, 1858 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35 (S.D.N.Y. 1858).

Pincite

Opinion

The vessel was seized under the process, and before the return-day the claimant appeared and filed his claim in court on Feb. 16, 1858. On the return of the process, Feb. 16, 1858, proclamation was made in open court, and no one appearing, interlocutory and final decrees were perfected in favor of the libellants. The claim alleges that after the filing of his claim no proceedings could be taken by the libellants without notice to him.

HELD

BY THE COURT.

That the fact of putting in a claim does not stay proceedings ex parte by the libellant, unless it be interposed on the return-day of the process, when the proclamation is made. Then the libellant must regard it as at his peril, although he receives no personal notice of its being filed. The libellants, therefore, have been regular in their proceedings, and the motion must be denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The vessel was seized under the process, and before the return-day the claimant appeared and filed his claim in court on Feb. 16, 1858. On the return of the process, Feb. 16, 1858, proclamation was made in open court, and no one appearing, interlocutory and final decrees were perfected in favor of the libellants. The claim alleges that after the filing of his claim no proceedings could be taken by the libellants without notice to him.

HELD

BY THE COURT.

That the fact of putting in a claim does not stay proceedings ex parte by the libellant, unless it be interposed on the return-day of the process, when the proclamation is made. Then the libellant must regard it as at his peril, although he receives no personal notice of its being filed. The libellants, therefore, have been regular in their proceedings, and the motion must be denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 F. Cas. 1048, 1858 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baxter-v-the-dona-fermoas-nysd-1858.