EVANS v. STARBUCK

E.D. Pennsylvania

EVANS v. STARBUCK

61 F. 502, 1894 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 4, 1894

DocketNo. 26

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 61 F. 502 (EVANS v. STARBUCK) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

EVANS v. STARBUCK, 61 F. 502, 1894 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20 (E.D. Pa. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

BUTLER, District Judge.

The claims are for wages. The respondent is a dredge, working in the water with the usual accompaniment of scows. That a dredge and her scows are to be treated as one concern, and are subject to the admiralty jurisdiction has been séveral times decided, and I think rightly. To discuss the subject would be waste of time. The question of admiralty jurisdiction has been so fully considered that nothing new can be added. The fol[503]*503lowing cases present the subject in every aspect in which it has arisen or is likely to arise: The Pioneer, 30 Fed. 206; The Alabama, 19 Fed. 544; Endner v. Greco, 3 Fed. 411; Disbrow v. The Walsh Brothers, 36 Fed. 608; The General Cass, 1 Brown, Adm. 334 [Fed. Cas. No. 5,307]; McNamara v. The Atlantic, 53 Fed. 607; Two Barges, 46 Fed. 204; The Hendrick Hudson, 3 Ben. 419 [Fed. Cas. No. 6,335]; The Alabama, 22 Fed. 449; Wood v. Two Barges, 46 Fed. 204; The W. F. Brown, Id. 290; The Dick Keys, 1 Biss. 408 [Fed. Cas. No. 3,898]; The Kate Tremaine, 5 Ben. 60 [Fed. Cas. No. 7,622]; A Floating Dry Dock, etc., 22 Fed. 685; The Old Natchez, 9 Fed. 476; Cope v. Dry Dock, 10 Fed. 142.

The claim of Evans is acknowledged to be correct and is allowed. The claim of Clements will be allowed to date of respondent’s seizure.

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

BUTLER, District Judge.

The claims are for wages. The respondent is a dredge, working in the water with the usual accompaniment of scows. That a dredge and her scows are to be treated as one concern, and are subject to the admiralty jurisdiction has been séveral times decided, and I think rightly. To discuss the subject would be waste of time. The question of admiralty jurisdiction has been so fully considered that nothing new can be added. The fol[503]*503lowing cases present the subject in every aspect in which it has arisen or is likely to arise: The Pioneer, 30 Fed. 206; The Alabama, 19 Fed. 544; Endner v. Greco, 3 Fed. 411; Disbrow v. The Walsh Brothers, 36 Fed. 608; The General Cass, 1 Brown, Adm. 334 [Fed. Cas. No. 5,307]; McNamara v. The Atlantic, 53 Fed. 607; Two Barges, 46 Fed. 204; The Hendrick Hudson, 3 Ben. 419 [Fed. Cas. No. 6,335]; The Alabama, 22 Fed. 449; Wood v. Two Barges, 46 Fed. 204; The W. F. Brown, Id. 290; The Dick Keys, 1 Biss. 408 [Fed. Cas. No. 3,898]; The Kate Tremaine, 5 Ben. 60 [Fed. Cas. No. 7,622]; A Floating Dry Dock, etc., 22 Fed. 685; The Old Natchez, 9 Fed. 476; Cope v. Dry Dock, 10 Fed. 142.

The claim of Evans is acknowledged to be correct and is allowed. The claim of Clements will be allowed to date of respondent’s seizure.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 F. 502, 1894 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/evans-v-starbuck-paed-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack