Ching Yew Hong v. United States

E.D. New York

Ching Yew Hong v. United States

65 F. Supp. 40, 1945 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1553

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. New York

DecidedOctober 2, 1945

DocketNo. 17204

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 65 F. Supp. 40 (Ching Yew Hong v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ching Yew Hong v. United States, 65 F. Supp. 40, 1945 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1553 (E.D.N.Y. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

KENNEDY, District Judge.

This is a motion to amend a libel in such wise as to include a claim for indemnity. As originally drawn the libel contained only a claim for maintenance and cure.

The power of the Court sitting in admiralty to permit amendments is very broad. See Benedict on Admiralty, 6th Edition, § 355. The only objection urged against the amendment here is that the procter for the libelant is said to have given an assurance to respondent’s proctor that no claim for indemnity was being urged, whereupon depositions were taken on that theory. I have some difficulty in seeing how the extent of the claim for damages could affect the taking of testimony dealing with liability. However, libel-ant’s proctor says that as a condition of the granting of the motion he is willing to undertake that respondent will be given ample opportunity to prepare for trial, and I assume in making my decision that this covers the retaking of depositions, if respondent’s proctor is so advised. I therefore grant the motion on the terms suggested.

Settle order on notice.

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

KENNEDY, District Judge.

This is a motion to amend a libel in such wise as to include a claim for indemnity. As originally drawn the libel contained only a claim for maintenance and cure.

The power of the Court sitting in admiralty to permit amendments is very broad. See Benedict on Admiralty, 6th Edition, § 355. The only objection urged against the amendment here is that the procter for the libelant is said to have given an assurance to respondent’s proctor that no claim for indemnity was being urged, whereupon depositions were taken on that theory. I have some difficulty in seeing how the extent of the claim for damages could affect the taking of testimony dealing with liability. However, libel-ant’s proctor says that as a condition of the granting of the motion he is willing to undertake that respondent will be given ample opportunity to prepare for trial, and I assume in making my decision that this covers the retaking of depositions, if respondent’s proctor is so advised. I therefore grant the motion on the terms suggested.

Settle order on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 F. Supp. 40, 1945 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1553, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ching-yew-hong-v-united-states-nyed-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack