The Circassian

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

The Circassian

5 F. Cas. 711, 11 Blatchf. 472, 1874 U.S. App. LEXIS 1614

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

DecidedFebruary 19, 1874

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 5 F. Cas. 711 (The Circassian) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

The Circassian, 5 F. Cas. 711, 11 Blatchf. 472, 1874 U.S. App. LEXIS 1614 (circtsdny 1874).

Pincite

Opinion

WOODRUFF, Circuit Judge.

The decision I have felt constrained to make in the case of The Edith [Case No. 4,2S3], in which an opinion is herewith filed, is conclusive against the libellant in this case. That opinion, mutatis mutandis, must be taken as my opinion herein. It differs only in the form of proceeding, the absence of any bond taken on the attachment in the state court, and the fact that the libel herein was filed since the new 12th rale in admiralty, of 1S72, was adopted. Neither of these differences can affect the result; and it may well be added, that, by their new rale, the supreme court did not intend to revive claims which were almost barred by the statute of limitations, and to make them liens, either directly or by implication, upon vessels, so as to cut off the rights of mortgagees and subsequent purchasers of the ship, whose title had. been perfected or acquired before the rule was adopted.

Let the libel be dismissed, with costs, in accordance with the decision appealed from.

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

WOODRUFF, Circuit Judge.

The decision I have felt constrained to make in the case of The Edith [Case No. 4,2S3], in which an opinion is herewith filed, is conclusive against the libellant in this case. That opinion, mutatis mutandis, must be taken as my opinion herein. It differs only in the form of proceeding, the absence of any bond taken on the attachment in the state court, and the fact that the libel herein was filed since the new 12th rale in admiralty, of 1S72, was adopted. Neither of these differences can affect the result; and it may well be added, that, by their new rale, the supreme court did not intend to revive claims which were almost barred by the statute of limitations, and to make them liens, either directly or by implication, upon vessels, so as to cut off the rights of mortgagees and subsequent purchasers of the ship, whose title had. been perfected or acquired before the rule was adopted.

Let the libel be dismissed, with costs, in accordance with the decision appealed from.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 F. Cas. 711, 11 Blatchf. 472, 1874 U.S. App. LEXIS 1614, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-circassian-circtsdny-1874.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack