Ceballos v. The Alert

44 F. 685, 1890 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedDecember 27, 1890
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 44 F. 685 (Ceballos v. The Alert) 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
Ceballos v. The Alert, 44 F. 685, 1890 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52 (S.D.N.Y. 1890).

Opinion

Brown, J.

The evidence taken in the cause, while it leaves no doubt that the libelant is entitled to a decree against the Alert, is, notwithstanding, insufficient to clear up the matters in dispute as between the steamer and the steam-ship company, who, as charterers, were brought" into the cause upon the steamer’s petition, and may possibly be .bound. [686]*686to respond for any judgment recovered by the libelant. After so long a delay, for the purpose of securing all attainable evidence as between the defendants, the libelant’s right to a decree, as it now appears from the testimony, should not be longer postponed: and a decree may therefore be entered in his behalf as against the Alert, which is no doubt responsible to him, and an order of reference taken to compute his damages. The decree will be made without prejudice-to the rights of the co-defendants as between themselves, or to any further decree that may be taken upon additional testimony as to the liability of the steam-ship company to bear' the whole, or a part, of the same damages, or to indemnify the steamer in respect thereto. Instead of dismissing the steamship company, the. case, as between the two defendants, should, I think, be .continued as between them, rather than-send them to a new action; not merely in order to preserve the testimony already taken, but that the company may also be-bound by the adjudication in regard to the amount of damages, in case the company should ultimately be held answerable therefor; it being not improbable that controversy may arise as to the rule of damages as well as to the amount. An interlocutory decree may be.'eníeréd in accordance herewith'.' ..

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

Related

Golcar S. S. Co. v. Tweedie Trading Co.
146 F. 563 (S.D. New York, 1906)
Tebo v. Mayor of New York
61 F. 692 (S.D. New York, 1894)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
44 F. 685, 1890 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ceballos-v-the-alert-nysd-1890.