The Cherokee

D. South Carolina

The Cherokee

30 F. 640, 1887 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46

DecidedMarch 22, 1887

StatusPublished

This text of 30 F. 640 (The Cherokee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

The Cherokee, 30 F. 640, 1887 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46 (D.S.C. 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

Simonton, J.

This is a motion, 'in the nature of a demurrer, as to the sufficiency of the libel. The libel begins in these AArords: “The libel of Thomas Young, owner of the steam-tug Monarch, of Charleston, for himself and all others, entitled against the S. S. Cherokee, in a cause of salvage, civil and maritime, alleges as folloAvs: First," qtc. NoAvhere in the allegations folloAving this heading is it stated that Young is the owner of the tug Monarch; nor is his name mentioned or his o\Arnership alluded to again. Upon this point respondent excepts to the libel. The OAvnership of the tug is a material fact, and it may become of essential importance in the protection of the respondent in obeying- the decree of the court in this case. It should therefore be alleged in a distinct article, (Rule 23d, Adm.,) so that respondent may traverse it, if he be so advised, or at least may require proof of it. Even if this has not been adopted as the universal rule, it is better pleading, and this will be observed hereafter within this jurisdiction. It conforms to the opinion of the supreme court in McKinlay v. Morrish, 21 How. 343.

The libelant will amend his libel to meet this objection.

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

Simonton, J.

This is a motion, 'in the nature of a demurrer, as to the sufficiency of the libel. The libel begins in these AArords: “The libel of Thomas Young, owner of the steam-tug Monarch, of Charleston, for himself and all others, entitled against the S. S. Cherokee, in a cause of salvage, civil and maritime, alleges as folloAvs: First," qtc. NoAvhere in the allegations folloAving this heading is it stated that Young is the owner of the tug Monarch; nor is his name mentioned or his o\Arnership alluded to again. Upon this point respondent excepts to the libel. The OAvnership of the tug is a material fact, and it may become of essential importance in the protection of the respondent in obeying- the decree of the court in this case. It should therefore be alleged in a distinct article, (Rule 23d, Adm.,) so that respondent may traverse it, if he be so advised, or at least may require proof of it. Even if this has not been adopted as the universal rule, it is better pleading, and this will be observed hereafter within this jurisdiction. It conforms to the opinion of the supreme court in McKinlay v. Morrish, 21 How. 343.

The libelant will amend his libel to meet this objection.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 F. 640, 1887 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-cherokee-scd-1887.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack