Smith v. Acadia Overseas Freighters, Ltd.

120 F. Supp. 192, 1953 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2050
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
DecidedApril 15, 1953
Docket103 of 1950
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 120 F. Supp. 192 (Smith v. Acadia Overseas Freighters, Ltd.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Smith v. Acadia Overseas Freighters, Ltd., 120 F. Supp. 192, 1953 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2050 (E.D. Pa. 1953).

Opinion

WELSH, District Judge.

This is a motion of libellant to set aside respondent’s notice of the taking of depositions of Thomas Winters, Anthony Sharkey and Joseph Danby.

Libellant’s contention is that respondents are barred from taking the depositions of said persons because respondents in their' answers to interrogatories propounded by libellant failed to disclose the identity of said persons. Respondents’ answer to the contention is that at the time they filed answers to interrogatories they had no information concerning said persons.

It would appear that respondents’ answer to libellant’s contention disposes of the matter. We feel however that the matter is governed by an order of this Court entered on April 20, 1953 in Wolf v. Dickinson, 15 F.R.D. 407, amending an opinion and order previously entered in said case. That order provides that where an interrogating party specifies the interrogatories shall be deemed continuing so as to require answers thereto up to the time of trial there is a *193 duty on the answering party, after it files its original answers to interrogatories, to furnish up to the date of trial any information it obtains with regard to the subject matter of the interrogatories. •

True in the present case it was not specified that the interrogatories propounded to the respondents were to be deemed continuing. Nevertheless, we hold that they are, on the strength of the views expressed by us in Wolf v. Dickinson, supra. Those views ' expressed again are that the requirement of a party to furnish answers to interrogatories up to the date of trial is a means of accomplishing one of the primary objects of the Rules, that of full disclosure of facts relevant to the issues or subject matter and not privileged.

Accordingly, libellant’s motion is granted.

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

Related

Pare v. Rodrique
260 A.2d 313 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1969)
Greyhound Lines, Inc., a Corporation v. Delta Miller
402 F.2d 134 (Eighth Circuit, 1968)
Passino v. Sanburn
190 So. 2d 61 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1966)
Quatrano v. Marrocco
208 N.E.2d 632 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1965)
Román Montalvo v. Delgado Herrera
89 P.R. 419 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1963)
Gebhard v. Niedzwiecki
122 N.W.2d 110 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1963)
Taggart v. Vermont Transportation Co.
32 F.R.D. 587 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1963)
Battershell v. Bowman Dairy Co.
185 N.E.2d 340 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1961)
Lunn v. United Aircraft Corp.
25 F.R.D. 186 (D. Delaware, 1960)
Novick v. Pennsylvania Railroad
18 F.R.D. 296 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1955)
Furmanek v. Southern Trading Co.
15 F.R.D. 405 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1953)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
120 F. Supp. 192, 1953 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2050, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-acadia-overseas-freighters-ltd-paed-1953.