Franklin Sugar-Refining Co. v. Funch

66 F. 342, 1895 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
DecidedMarch 15, 1895
DocketNo. 130
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 66 F. 342 (Franklin Sugar-Refining Co. v. Funch) 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
Franklin Sugar-Refining Co. v. Funch, 66 F. 342, 1895 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21 (E.D. Pa. 1895).

Opinion

BUTLER, District Judge.

The original libel, (of Funch, Edye & Co. v. “The Franklin Sugar-Refining Co.,”) was filed December 7, 1894, and the answer thereto and cross libel were filed December 26, 1894, whereupon Funch, Edye & Co. proceeded to take their testimony and have now completed their proofs.

On the 12th day of March, 1895, “the Franklin Sugar-Refining Company” applied for an order under rule 53 in admiralty, requiring Funch, Edye & Co., to give security for such damages as may be recovered against them on cross libel, and for a stay of proceedings on the original libel till security be entered.

I do not think this order should be allowed. It seems to medoubtful whether rule 53 contemplates a case where the original libel is in personam and where, consequently, no security is required of the respondent in the original cause; its terms do not seem applicable to such a case. It calls for “security in the usual amount and form,” etc.

Where the original libel is in personam there is no such “usual amount and form of security” to which security from the respondent in the cross libel may be made to conform, as the rule seems to call for.

The rule has not been understood, in this district; to apply to such cases, and has never been-so applied; nevertheless as it is not necessary to decide this question at present, I will not decide it.

Granting the rule to be applicable, 1 do not think the demand for security and stay of proceedings should be allowed under the circumstances shown. It was not asked for promptly, as if might and should have been, nor until the original libelants bad taken their testimony and incurred the expenses of doing so. To stay proceedings after this lapse of time and under these circumstances would seem to he unjust. Of course the cross libelant may have a citation as prayed for; the effect of taking it will be a matter for future consideration.

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

Related

Prince Line, Ltd. v. Mayer & Lage, Inc.
264 F. 856 (S.D. New York, 1920)
Walker v. Stockwell
210 F. 575 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1914)
Morse Ironworks & Dry Dock Co. v. Luckenbach
123 F. 332 (S.D. New York, 1903)
Genthner v. Wiley
85 F. 797 (D. Massachusetts, 1898)
Lochmore S. S. Co. v. Hagar
78 F. 642 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1897)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
66 F. 342, 1895 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/franklin-sugar-refining-co-v-funch-paed-1895.