O'Donnell v. Marine Transit Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

O'Donnell v. Marine Transit Corp.

232 A.D. 700

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in O'Donnell v. Marine Transit Corp.. Read the opinion of the Court — 240 A.D. 840 →

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 15, 1931·Published

Opinion

Order granting plaintiffs’ motion to strike out the sixth separate defense in answer of defendant Globe and Rutgers Fire Insurance Company affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Assuming that the Admiralty Court could have determined plaintiffs’ claim 'of appellant’s liability under the policy in question, if an issue thereon were properly tendered, and made a binding decree, we are unable to find any allegation that any such issue was tendered in the admiralty proceedings or that any such determination was made. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Kapper, Hagarty and Tompkins, JJ., concur.

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

Order granting plaintiffs’ motion to strike out the sixth separate defense in answer of defendant Globe and Rutgers Fire Insurance Company affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Assuming that the Admiralty Court could have determined plaintiffs’ claim 'of appellant’s liability under the policy in question, if an issue thereon were properly tendered, and made a binding decree, we are unable to find any allegation that any such issue was tendered in the admiralty proceedings or that any such determination was made. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Kapper, Hagarty and Tompkins, JJ., concur.

O'Donnell v. Marine Transit Corp., 232 A.D. 700 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

232 A.D. 700 (O'Donnell v. Marine Transit Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.