Linde

Linde v. Globe & Rutgers Fire Ins.

Good Law
3 F. Supp. 907·1933 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1723
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaMarch 18, 1933No. 6012California1,516 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

James, J.

The libelant has asked for an order referring the issues made by the pleadings to a commissioner or master to take the testimony and report findings. Counsel for respondent formally objected to an order of reference, stating that his particular reason is that he believes it beyond the power of the court to make the order asked for. The libelant taking notice that the calendar of the court, both in this division and in the divisions of the other District Judges, are heavily congested, and that in the ordinary course a trial before the judge cannot be had within at least a year from this date, urges especially that certain witnesses, seagoing *908 men, are about to depart from the district, and that there are no funds to pay the costs of taking depositions. He does state, however, that funds could be supplied to pay the costs and fees before a commissioner. Further reason is given that the receiver libel-ant is desirous of closing his receivership and that this libel suit is the only pending matter which interferes. Admiralty Rule 46 (28 USCA § 723), provides that “In all trials in admiralty the testimony of witnesses shall be taken orally in open court, except as otherwise provided…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.