The Cetewayo

E.D. New York

The Cetewayo

7 F. 128, 1881 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. New York

DecidedMarch 26, 1881

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 7 F. 128 (The Cetewayo) 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

The Cetewayo, 7 F. 128, 1881 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88 (E.D.N.Y. 1881).

Pincite

Opinion

Benedict, D. J.

This is a motion to compel a salvor to give security for costs. The salvor was one of the crew of a tug during the performance of a salvage service by the tug. The defence appears to be that the libellant is not entitled to share the salvage, because he was employed on monthly wages to work on the tug in the performance of salvage services. This defence, it is claimed, has been proved in testimony already taken in this cause, and upon this ground it is now contended that the seaman should give security for costs. But it is evident that there was no written agreement by the seamen to waive the right to share in salvage, and that the existence of such an undertaking will be matter of inference to be drawn from circumstances. It would have been easy to have made an agreement with the crew to that effect, and if that precaution had been taken there would have been some ground for compelling security for costs. In the absence of such a precaution, and where an order to file security is equivalent to dismissing the libel, I am not inclined to give such a direction.

Motion denied.

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

Benedict, D. J.

This is a motion to compel a salvor to give security for costs. The salvor was one of the crew of a tug during the performance of a salvage service by the tug. The defence appears to be that the libellant is not entitled to share the salvage, because he was employed on monthly wages to work on the tug in the performance of salvage services. This defence, it is claimed, has been proved in testimony already taken in this cause, and upon this ground it is now contended that the seaman should give security for costs. But it is evident that there was no written agreement by the seamen to waive the right to share in salvage, and that the existence of such an undertaking will be matter of inference to be drawn from circumstances. It would have been easy to have made an agreement with the crew to that effect, and if that precaution had been taken there would have been some ground for compelling security for costs. In the absence of such a precaution, and where an order to file security is equivalent to dismissing the libel, I am not inclined to give such a direction.

Motion denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 F. 128, 1881 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-cetewayo-nyed-1881.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack