The Oscoda

N.D. New York

The Oscoda

66 F. 347, 1895 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. New York

DecidedFebruary 16, 1895

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 66 F. 347 (The Oscoda) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.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 Oscoda, 66 F. 347, 1895 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22 (N.D.N.Y. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

COXE, District Judge.

The libelant seeks to enforce a lien upon the propellor Oscoda for damages occasioned by the breach of a partly executed contract of towage. The exceptions dispute the jurisdiction of the court. I am of the opinion that the propeller, having entered upon the agreement to tow the libelant’s barge during the entire season of 1894, is answerable in rein for the breach of the agreement by the abandonment of the barge in September. The G. L. Rosenthal, 57 Fed. 254; The Oregon, 5 C. C. A. 229, 55 Fed. 666, 677. The libel is also excepted to because the allegations of damage are indefinite and uncertain. In view of the somewhat unusual character of the agreement it is thought that the libel should point out the manner in which the alleged damages arose with sufficient distinctness to enable the respondent to meet the claim at the trial. The fourth exception is sustained. The others are overruled. The libelant may amend within 20 days.

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

COXE, District Judge.

The libelant seeks to enforce a lien upon the propellor Oscoda for damages occasioned by the breach of a partly executed contract of towage. The exceptions dispute the jurisdiction of the court. I am of the opinion that the propeller, having entered upon the agreement to tow the libelant’s barge during the entire season of 1894, is answerable in rein for the breach of the agreement by the abandonment of the barge in September. The G. L. Rosenthal, 57 Fed. 254; The Oregon, 5 C. C. A. 229, 55 Fed. 666, 677. The libel is also excepted to because the allegations of damage are indefinite and uncertain. In view of the somewhat unusual character of the agreement it is thought that the libel should point out the manner in which the alleged damages arose with sufficient distinctness to enable the respondent to meet the claim at the trial. The fourth exception is sustained. The others are overruled. The libelant may amend within 20 days.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 F. 347, 1895 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-oscoda-nynd-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack