In the Matter of Morris Reiman and Albert Friedlander, alleged Bankrupts.
every man that he meets? Assuming, as I do, perfect good faith and reasonable intelligence, I hold that a statement made under these circumstances was not invalid because it omitted a reference to the New Orleans and Mississippi property.
Upon the whole case, I am of the opinion, that the decree confirming the composition was right, and that the review asked for should be denied.
Rule of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, adopted since the publication of the eleventh volume of these Reports.
For the purpose of carrying out more efficiently the provisions of the recent Act of Congress, (Act of February 16th, 1875, § 1, 18 U. S. Stat. at Large, 315,) after it shall take effect, in regard to the finding of facts and of conclusions of law by the Circuit Court, in cases in Admiralty, on appeal, each party to an appeal shall furnish to the Court, at the commencement of the hearing, and shall serve on the proctor for each of the other parties to the appeal, five days before the hearing, a printed finding of facts and conclusions of law, as proposed, printed on writing paper, on only one side. If this be not done, the party in default will not be heard on the appeal, and, if the party in default be the appellant, his appeal will be dismissed.
1. A collision occurred between two vessels, the M. and the E. The li- bellants, as owners of the M., brought this suit, in personam, in the District Court for this District, against the owners of the E., to recover for dam. ages caused by such collision, claim- ing $2,100. The owners of the E. sued the M., in rem, in the District Court for the Southern District of New York, claiming to recover $3,- 489 37, as damages caused by the collision. Both suits were tried to- gether, on the same proofs, before the same Judge, in the District Court. In this suit, the libellants had a decree for $1,695 92. The li- bel in the other suit was dismissed. The owners of the E. appealed to Circuit Court, in each suit. The de- cree in the suit in the Southern Dis- trict was directed to be affirmed in November, 1870, and the formal de- cree of affirmance was entered in February, 1871. In the latter month the owners of the E. appealed from that decree to the Supreme Court. In November, 1871, the appeal in this suit was heard by the Circuit Court, and, on the 8th of March, 1872, the libellants had a decree therein, in this Court, for $1,292 81. In the latter month, the owners of the E. appealed from that decrce to the Supreme Court. That Court dismissed the appeal for want of ju- risdiction. Afterwards, that Court,
In a case of collision, this Court de- creed for the libellant. The Supreme Court, on appeal, held that both ves- sels were guilty of fault which con- tributed to the collision. The claim- ant, not having alleged, in his an- swer, that he had sustained any dam- ages by the collision, moved, on the presentation of the mandate from the Supreme Court, that he be allowed to amend his answer in that respect: Held, that the motion ought to be granted, and such damages ascer- tained by a reference, and then brought into an apportionment with the amount of damages already found to have been sustained by the libellant. The Pennsylvania,
See INTEREST, 1. COLLISION,
« PreviousContinue » |