The Lindrup
| Decision Date | 22 November 1895 |
| Docket Number | 37. |
| Citation | 70 F. 718 |
| Parties | THE LINDRUP. v. THE LINDRUP. INMAN |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
A libel in rem against the tug Lindrup was filed July 11, 1894, a monition issued, and the vessel seized, according to the marshal's return, 'in the open waters of Lake Superior, about 3,000 feet from the pier at Sault Ste. Marie Michigan. ' The St. Mary's river, at Sault Ste Marie, forms the common boundary between the state of Michigan and the dominion of Canada, so that a point 3,000 feet from the pier where the vessel was seized in fact may be within the territorial limits of either Michigan or Canada. Before the claimant appeared and filed an answer, a motion was made to discharge the tug for want of jurisdiction to seize it where it was seized; and, this motion coming on for hearing before Judge Williams, he dismissed it, and sustained the jurisdiction of this court to entertain the suit, for the reason that the seizure of the vessel was made in the open waters of Lake Superior, 62 F. 851. There is no reference in the opinion of the judge to the further fact stated in the return of the marshal that the seizure was made 3,000 feet from the pier at Sault Ste. Marie. The answer filed by claimant contains the substance of a plea in abatement and in bar of the jurisdiction of the court. It also alleges that the tug was seized outside of the jurisdictional limits of the district court of Minnesota, and denies that the matters in the libel are within the admiralty jurisdiction of the court. Testimony was taken under stipulation and order of reference, and the referee reported that the tug was seized on Sunday, July 15, 1894, at a point in the St. Mary's river, in the state of Michigan, not more than 3,000 feet westward of the south pier light at St Mary's river canal; that it was taken to the dock, and tied up; that possession was demanded of the tug on Monday, July 16th, which was refused, and the vessel was then brought by the marshal to Duluth, in this district.
White & McKeon, for libelant.
John Jenswold (M. C. Krause, of counsel), for defendant.
NELSON District Judge (after stating the facts).
It is the locality where the vessel was seized which must determine the jurisdiction of this court over the res in the case at bar. In the view I take of the case, it will be necessary to examine only the question of jurisdiction. It is urged that this question was settled...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Suspine v. Compania Transatlantica Centroamericana
...the answer and the taking of testimony thereunder to "show that the tug was seized outside of the jurisdiction of this court" (The Lindrup, D.C., 70 F. 718, 719); but it has since been held that the better practice is to file separate exceptions before answer (The Elisabeth Van Belgie, D.C.......
-
Untersinger v. United States
...it is not uncommon to join exceptions with the answer." See also The Elisabeth Van Belgie, D.C.S.D. Fla., 248 F. 1006, 1007; The Lindrup, D. C.Minn., 70 F. 718, 719. ...
-
Caraballo v. Lykes Bros. Steamship Co.
...grounds. The Troy Socony, 18 F.2d 629, 631 (E.D.N.Y.1926); The Elisabeth Van Belgie, 248 F. 1006, 1007 (S.D.Fla.1917); The Lindrup, 70 F. 718, 719 (D.Minn. 1895). (All the more, it would seem, an uncharacterized appearance such as that made in the present case would not be an automatic waiv......
- Lehman v. Graham