Burtis v. The Restless

E.D. New York

Burtis v. The Restless

78 F. 927, 1896 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108

District Court, E.D. New York·Decided December 2, 1896·Published

Opinion

BENEDICT, District Judge,

in this case the same questions arise as In the case of The Glen Iris, 78 Fed. 511, except that there is no claim for damage by negligent towing, and no necessity for making a rest in any of the monthly bills on that account. Let the fees of the officers of court be first paid, and then the claims for which libels had been filed within 40 days of the date of each monthly bill, with costs pro rata, if there be not enough for all.

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

BENEDICT, District Judge,

in this case the same questions arise as In the case of The Glen Iris, 78 Fed. 511, except that there is no claim for damage by negligent towing, and no necessity for making a rest in any of the monthly bills on that account. Let the fees of the officers of court be first paid, and then the claims for which libels had been filed within 40 days of the date of each monthly bill, with costs pro rata, if there be not enough for all.

Burtis v. The Restless, 78 F. 927, 1896 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108 (E.D.N.Y. 1896).

Pincite

78 F. 927 (Burtis v. The Restless) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related