Flannery v. New York Cent. R. Co.

E.D. New York

Flannery v. New York Cent. R. Co.

40 F.2d 507, 1929 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1853, 1929 A.M.C. 288

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. New York

DecidedJanuary 18, 1929

DocketNo. 8095

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 40 F.2d 507 (Flannery v. New York Cent. R. Co.) 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

Flannery v. New York Cent. R. Co., 40 F.2d 507, 1929 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1853, 1929 A.M.C. 288 (E.D.N.Y. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

CAMPBELL, District Judge.

Hearing on exception to answer to interrogatory filed December 28, 1928.

The bargee in question was the agent and representative of the libelant for many purposes, although under the orders of, and for many purposes the agent of, the respondent.

If libelant could escape answering when informed by its agent present on the barge as to the time when and place where the barge was damaged, then the propounding of interrogatories would be a farce.

If libelant feels that the court erred in granting the order to answer such interrogatory, then it will have its remedy in a higher court, but the order must be here obeyed, and, as I understood from the proctor for the libelant, on the argument- of these exceptions, that the answer was given with the intention of obeying that order, it must [508]*508be construed as fixing the time when, and place where, the damages were received, and binding the libelant to that extent.

Settle order on motion.

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