Shamrock Towing Co. v. Manufacturers' & Merchants' Lighterage Co.
262 F. 844, 1918 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 667
Opinion
The purpose of choosing this district was to obtain security. While concurrent jurisdiction exists between the districts, this does not give the right to obtain security in the district where personal service could be had. The possibility of levying upon the vessel does not give the right so to do. Hence it is not abuse of process to go into an adjoining district any more than it would be to go to a more remote district.
Motion denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Shamrock Towing Co. v. Manufacturers' & Merchants' Lighterage Co., 262 F. 844, 1918 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 667 (E.D.N.Y. 1918).
262 F. 844 (Shamrock Towing Co. v. Manufacturers' & Merchants' Lighterage Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
D/SA/S FLINT v. Sabre Shipping Corporation
228 F. Supp. 384 (E.D. New York, 1964)
Cavanaugh v. Starbuck Towing Corp.
261 F. 656 (E.D. New York, 1919)