The Fred B. Dalzell

E.D. New York

The Fred B. Dalzell

11 F.2d 378, 1925 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1459

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. New York

DecidedNovember 21, 1925

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 11 F.2d 378 (The Fred B. Dalzell) 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 Fred B. Dalzell, 11 F.2d 378, 1925 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1459 (E.D.N.Y. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

INCH, District Judge.

“After most careful reconsideration of this motion, I have come to the conclusion that under the circumstances of this case the interrogatories should be answered. This does not compel the giving of any witness’ name; it does not compel the giving of evidence solely belonging to a claimant and as a defense. It is essential to libelant to know and prove that a tug was at a certain place at a certain time. He is entitled to such information, if claimant can answer. It is not sufficient to merely admit it was in the neighborhood of that place, nor does the giving of such location merely indicate any liability on the part of such tug. Such remains still to be proved by other evidence. Motion is now granted.”

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

INCH, District Judge.

“After most careful reconsideration of this motion, I have come to the conclusion that under the circumstances of this case the interrogatories should be answered. This does not compel the giving of any witness’ name; it does not compel the giving of evidence solely belonging to a claimant and as a defense. It is essential to libelant to know and prove that a tug was at a certain place at a certain time. He is entitled to such information, if claimant can answer. It is not sufficient to merely admit it was in the neighborhood of that place, nor does the giving of such location merely indicate any liability on the part of such tug. Such remains still to be proved by other evidence. Motion is now granted.”

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 F.2d 378, 1925 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1459, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-fred-b-dalzell-nyed-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack