Jas. I. Miller Tobacco Co. v. Ocean S. S. Co.

E.D. New York

Jas. I. Miller Tobacco Co. v. Ocean S. S. Co.

8 F. Supp. 385, 1934 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1390

DecidedJune 21, 1934

StatusPublished

This text of 8 F. Supp. 385 (Jas. I. Miller Tobacco Co. v. Ocean S. S. 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

Jas. I. Miller Tobacco Co. v. Ocean S. S. Co., 8 F. Supp. 385, 1934 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1390 (E.D.N.Y. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

INCH, District Judge.

The libelant sues the Ocean Steamship Company and the American Mail Line jointly as responsible for alleged damage to some cargo. The Ocean Steamship Company addresses nine questions to its codefendant which may save the expense and delay of taking testimony in China. There is authority for this procedure. The Cleona (D. C.) 37 F.(2d) 599.

While I believe such practice is only to be allowed in exceptional eases and for some plainly good reason, I can see nothing here that should cause inconvenience to the American Mail Line or affect the relation between the two defendants, exeept the quick ascertainment of the truth for use in the joint defense of the libel, as neither is suing the other. The nature of the questions, the avoidance of delay and expense, makes the exercise of the discretion of the admiralty court proper in such exceptional cases in granting the motion.

Answers to be filed within 20 days, etc. Motion granted. Settle order.

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

INCH, District Judge.

The libelant sues the Ocean Steamship Company and the American Mail Line jointly as responsible for alleged damage to some cargo. The Ocean Steamship Company addresses nine questions to its codefendant which may save the expense and delay of taking testimony in China. There is authority for this procedure. The Cleona (D. C.) 37 F.(2d) 599.

While I believe such practice is only to be allowed in exceptional eases and for some plainly good reason, I can see nothing here that should cause inconvenience to the American Mail Line or affect the relation between the two defendants, exeept the quick ascertainment of the truth for use in the joint defense of the libel, as neither is suing the other. The nature of the questions, the avoidance of delay and expense, makes the exercise of the discretion of the admiralty court proper in such exceptional cases in granting the motion.

Answers to be filed within 20 days, etc. Motion granted. Settle order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 F. Supp. 385, 1934 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1390, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jas-i-miller-tobacco-co-v-ocean-s-s-co-nyed-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack