Martin v. The Amiga Mia

S.D. New York

Martin v. The Amiga Mia

80 F. Supp. 42, 1948 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2034

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedMarch 18, 1948

DocketNos. 154-78, 154-93, 154-132

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 80 F. Supp. 42 (Martin v. The Amiga Mia) 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

Martin v. The Amiga Mia, 80 F. Supp. 42, 1948 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2034 (S.D.N.Y. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

KNOX, District Judge.

The report of the Special Commissioner in the above entitled suits is an admirable document and it, together with the testimony taken before him, has had my close attention. The result is that I am in full accord with the Commissioner’s findings of fact. I am also, with one exception, in agreement with his conclusions. I mean by this that, in my judgment, the costs of these proceedings should not be equally divided between the litigants, but that they, in their entirety, should be borne by Minneford Yacht Yard, Inc. Its course of procedure with respect to making overcharges on the work that was done for Rose L. Martin is little less than reprehensible. Such conduct should find no encouragement here.

For the above reason, I shall sustain Miss Martin’s exception No. 23. All others, along with each of the exceptions filed oi? behalf of the Yacht Yard, will be overruled.

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

KNOX, District Judge.

The report of the Special Commissioner in the above entitled suits is an admirable document and it, together with the testimony taken before him, has had my close attention. The result is that I am in full accord with the Commissioner’s findings of fact. I am also, with one exception, in agreement with his conclusions. I mean by this that, in my judgment, the costs of these proceedings should not be equally divided between the litigants, but that they, in their entirety, should be borne by Minneford Yacht Yard, Inc. Its course of procedure with respect to making overcharges on the work that was done for Rose L. Martin is little less than reprehensible. Such conduct should find no encouragement here.

For the above reason, I shall sustain Miss Martin’s exception No. 23. All others, along with each of the exceptions filed oi? behalf of the Yacht Yard, will be overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 F. Supp. 42, 1948 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2034, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-the-amiga-mia-nysd-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack