The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 256: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States, May-July, 1919. Page: 61
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
THE JOHN B. ROBBINS
of this motion would preclude the bankrupt from obtaining his dis-
charge. In spite of this fact, however, the court should, in its discre-
tion, grant the motion, if it finds that the motion is made seasonably
and in good faith. This motion was not made until the expiration of
the 18 months. In the Casey Case, 195 Fed. 322, 329, the District
Court of the Northern District of New York denied the motion to
vacate on the ground of laches in presenting the motion. The court
"Laches is measured sometimes by years and sometimes by days, depending
on the nature of the case and the circumstances. Here it was a question of
months with the bankrupt. If his order extending his time to file his applica-
tion for a discharge was to be attacked by a motion to vacate, the motion
should have been made promptly and long enough before the expiration of the
18 months period to enable him to renew his application or file more proofs in
support thereof, assuming the petition to have been insufficient."
In the case before me, the petition for an extension of time was
filed on January 16, 1919, 5 days before the expiration of the 18
months. The motion to vacate was not filed for 20 days thereafter.
The petition for discharge was published on January 20, 1919, notice
was sent the creditors on January 27, 1919, and the bankrupt paid for
the expense of publishing the notice.
Under all the circumstances of the case, I am constrained to find that
the motion to vacate the order of extending the time in which to file
petition for discharge was not seasonably made. The motion is denied.
THE JOHN B. ROBBINS.
(District Court, E. D. Virginia. February 18, 1919)
SHIPPIn G 6-132(5)-DAMAGE TO CARGo-LIABILITY.
Evidence held insufficient to establish unseaworthiness of a vessel at
the beginning of the voyage or improper stowage, but to show that
damage to cargo resulted from errors in navigation or dangers of the
sea, for which neither vessel nor owners were liable under Harter Act.
3 (Comp. St. 8031).
In Admiralty. Suit by the Hubbard Fertilizer Company against
the auxiliary schooner John B. Robbins and J. H. Sturgiss and J.
E. Mapp, its owners. Decree for respondents.
John H. Skeen, of Baltimore, Md., and John W. Oast, Jr., of Nor-
folk, Va., for libelant.
Edward R. Baird, Jr., of Norfolk, Va., for respondents.
WADDILL, District Judge. The libel in this case is filed to recover
for alleged damage to and loss of a certain portion of a cargo of 35
tons of guano, undertaken to be transported by the respondents from
Cape Charles, Va., to Bayford, Va.
The facts, briefly, are that the respondents undertook the service,
and the fertilizer was duly loaded upon the deck of the schooner on
Saturday, the 25th day of February, 1918. The schooner sailed at
gFor other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
Here’s what’s next.
This document can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Legislative Document.
The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 256: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States, May-July, 1919., legislative document, 1919; Saint Paul, Minnesota. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc38827/m1/75/: accessed March 30, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.