E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Bentley
E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & CO., Inc. v. BENTLEY
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
PER CURIAM.
The petition alleged no connection of the petitioner with the vessels, except as shown by the charter party, .together with the fact that he used them to carry the powder. It must appear from the pleading itself that the petitioner is a charterer of the kind described in the statute, and here it is too plain for discussion that the charter party did not make him such. Smith v. Booth (D. C.) 110 F. 680 . Whether other facts might bring him within the statute we need not inquire. We must go by the pleading. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Insurance Co. v. So. Pac. Ry. (February 21,1927) 47 S. Ct. 357 , 71 L. Ed.-, does not even remotely touch the case. Nor does the ninth article of the petition add any relevant allegation.
The only other question is as to whether a party cited by monition may except to the petition without filing a claim under the fifty-third rule. The rule makes this a condition precedent to filing an answer, but says nothing about exceptions. It would be an unreasonable condition to attach to the right to challenge the sufficiency of the pleading at the outset, and so to be rid of an injunction having no support in law. The more summary the procedure in such a case the better; *355 we think that rule 27 controls. So far as we can find, the point has never been bruited before, but it was passed sub silentio in The Titanic (D. C.) 209 F. 501 , Oceanic Steam Nav. Co. v. Mellor, 233 U. S. 718 , 34 S. Ct. 754 , 58 L. Ed. 1171 , L. R. A. 1916B, 637, In re Eastern Dredging Co. (D. C.) 138 F. 942 , and The Erie Lighter No. 108 (D. C.) 250 F. 490, 492 . We have no question of the propriety of the practice.
Decree affirmed; mandate to issue forthwith.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(“It must appear from the pleading itself that the petitioner is a charterer of the kind described in the statute . . . . Whether other facts might bring him within the statute we need not inquire. We must go by the pleading.”)
Cited by 12 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
- In re Mad Toyz III, LLC and Jeffrey Knight as the Owners of a 2018 38’ Statement 380 Open Motorboat Bearing Hull Identification Number STTEB112L718, Her Engines, Tackle, and Appurtenances.
- Koch v. All Potential
- McHugh v. Gleneagle Ship Management Co.
- In re Twenty Grand Offshore, Inc.
- In re Complaint of Barracuda Tanker Corp.
- Star Brick Corporation v. Oscar Johnson
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.