The Harrogate

Second Circuit

The Harrogate

112 F. 1019, 50 C.C.A. 665, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 4139

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedDecember 6, 1901

DocketNo. 21

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 112 F. 1019 (The Harrogate) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

The Harrogate, 112 F. 1019, 50 C.C.A. 665, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 4139 (2d Cir. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

It seems unnecessary to do more than refer .to the decision of this court in Bailey v. Sundberg, 1 C. C. A. 387, 49 Fed. 583, where the effect of a decree in a proceeding in rem in (lie admiralty was fully discussed, and it was held that cargo owners were not bound where the owners of the ship which carried it appeared voluntarily, and process was served by arrest: of the vessel, but with no publication of arrest and of time assigned for the return of process and the bearing of the cause. We arc referred [1020]*1020to no authority to support the proposition that the effect of similar proceedings in England is more far-reaching than here. On the contrary, the testimony of a witness called as to English law would seem to indicate that, unless cargo owners were actually made parties of record, they would not be bound, even though the vessel was arrested and advertised. But be that as it may, we think Bailey v. Sundberg is controlling.

The decree of the district court is affirmed, with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

It seems unnecessary to do more than refer .to the decision of this court in Bailey v. Sundberg, 1 C. C. A. 387, 49 Fed. 583, where the effect of a decree in a proceeding in rem in (lie admiralty was fully discussed, and it was held that cargo owners were not bound where the owners of the ship which carried it appeared voluntarily, and process was served by arrest: of the vessel, but with no publication of arrest and of time assigned for the return of process and the bearing of the cause. We arc referred [1020]*1020to no authority to support the proposition that the effect of similar proceedings in England is more far-reaching than here. On the contrary, the testimony of a witness called as to English law would seem to indicate that, unless cargo owners were actually made parties of record, they would not be bound, even though the vessel was arrested and advertised. But be that as it may, we think Bailey v. Sundberg is controlling.

The decree of the district court is affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 F. 1019, 50 C.C.A. 665, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 4139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-harrogate-ca2-1901.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack