In re Dry Dock R. R.

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

In re Dry Dock R. R.

165 F. 487, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 5396

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

DecidedSeptember 15, 1908

StatusPublished

This text of 165 F. 487 (In re Dry Dock R. R.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Dry Dock R. R., 165 F. 487, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 5396 (circtsdny 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

When decision on the question of transfers between Third Avenue and Metropolitan Systems was filed March 31, 1908, it was stated that no instructions could then be given with regard to the Dry Dock Line, because there were so many instances where it and the Metropolitan Street Railway made joint use of each other’s tracks. The difficulty then existing has since been removed by rearrangement of routes and car movements, and there is no reason apparent why receivers of Metropolitan and of Dry Dock should not discontinue exchange of transfers at the points other than those designated in the petition now filed. No formal order is necessary; this memorandum is sufficient authority, but notice, by posting in cars running on lines affected, should be given for 10 days before the new arrangement goes into effect.

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

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

When decision on the question of transfers between Third Avenue and Metropolitan Systems was filed March 31, 1908, it was stated that no instructions could then be given with regard to the Dry Dock Line, because there were so many instances where it and the Metropolitan Street Railway made joint use of each other’s tracks. The difficulty then existing has since been removed by rearrangement of routes and car movements, and there is no reason apparent why receivers of Metropolitan and of Dry Dock should not discontinue exchange of transfers at the points other than those designated in the petition now filed. No formal order is necessary; this memorandum is sufficient authority, but notice, by posting in cars running on lines affected, should be given for 10 days before the new arrangement goes into effect.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 F. 487, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 5396, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-dry-dock-r-r-circtsdny-1908.