Fluxgold v. United States Lines Co.

29 F. Supp. 506, 1939 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2351
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedOctober 5, 1939
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 29 F. Supp. 506 (Fluxgold v. United States Lines Co.) 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
Fluxgold v. United States Lines Co., 29 F. Supp. 506, 1939 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2351 (S.D.N.Y. 1939).

Opinion

COXE, District Judge.

The only difference between this motion and the one under consideration in Kenealy v. Texas Company, D.C., 29 F.Supp. 502, is that the defendant here objects to an additional item which was not contested in the Kenealy case. This item asks for the production for inspection of Item 2. “All statements of the captain or any other officer aboard the vessel as to the accident”.

These statements are open to the same objection as the statements of fellow employees considered in the Kenealy case. I, therefore, sustain the objection of the défendant to the production of the statements called for by item 2. The balance of the motion is determined in line with the opinion in the Kenealy case.

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

Related

Mulligan v. Eastern S. S. Lines, Inc.
6 F.R.D. 601 (S.D. New York, 1946)
French v. Zalstem-Zalessky
1 F.R.D. 508 (S.D. New York, 1940)
State v. Pan-American Bus Lines, Inc.
1 F.R.D. 213 (D. Maryland, 1940)
Gitto v. "Italia", Societa Anonima Di Navigazione
31 F. Supp. 567 (E.D. New York, 1940)
Bennett v. Waterman SS Corporation
29 F. Supp. 506 (S.D. New York, 1939)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
29 F. Supp. 506, 1939 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fluxgold-v-united-states-lines-co-nysd-1939.