Talk:Rea v. The Eclipse/Opinion of the Court
Add topic
|
This page is part of a WikiProject to improve the United States Supreme Court case pages. To participate see the project page. |
| Information about this edition | |
|---|---|
| Edition: | Rea v. The Eclipse, their libel in admiralty in the district court of the third judicial district of the territory of Dakota, April 7, 1881, against the steam-boat Eclipse, her tackle, apparel, and furniture, and against all persons intervening for their interest therein, in a cause of possession, civil and maritime, alleging-'first, that they are the majority of the owners of the steam-boat Eclipse, her tackle, apparel, and furniture, and, being such owners, on or about the 10th day of March, 1881, appointed one William Braith waite master of said vessel, to navigate and sail her for them, at the wages agreed upon between him and the said owners, and the said William Braithwaite continued to be such master until the 4th day of April, 1881, when the libelants removed him as master and appointed another as master in his place; second, that when the new master so appointed by libelants went on board said vessel, by their orders, to enter upon his duties as such master, the said William Braithwaite refused to give up the possession of the papers of said vessel to the said master or to the libelants, who have demanded the same, to the great damage of the libelants' Process was prayed against the vessel and Braithwaite, and was issued accordingly, returnable on the first Tuesday of June then next On the 15th of April, 1881, Braithwaite intervened as a claimant of the boat as 'trustee, one of the owners, and master,' averring that he was 'managing owner and master of said steamer, and is entitled to the possession and command thereof, and that no other person is entitled to the possession or command thereof' The libel was amended by stating that 'the said Robinson, Rea & Co owns a twenty-five hundred dollar interest in said steam-boat; the said Kay, McKnight & Co, four hundred and fifty dollar interest in said steamboat; the said Joseph McC Biggert, a twenty-five hundred dollar interest in said steam-boat; the said A W Cadman & Co, a one hundred dollar interest in said steam-boat; that the only other person having an interest in said steam-boat is Wm Braithwaite, who owns a twenty-five hundred dollar interest in said steamboat' Braithwaite filed an answer and exception on the 6th of May On the 4th of June the marshal returned that he had attached the boat under the process on the day it was issued, and that on the same day one Joseph Leighton put in a claim to the boat, and with the consent of the libelants, and upon Leighton's executing a stipulation of the value of $12,000, that being the amount agreed upon between him and libelants, he had delivered the boat to Leighton On the 25th of May, 1881, Leighton and Jordan filed their claim in intervention as purchasers under a bill of sale, bearing date March 31, 1881, and prayed for a decree directing Braithwaite to execute a bill of sale of the Eclipse, and to deliver it and the papers of the steam-boat to them, and on his refusal that all his interest in the boat be transferred to them, and for costs, and such other relief as a court of admiralty is competent to give . |
| Source: | Rea v. The Eclipse from http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/135 |
| Contributor(s): | BenchBot |
| Level of progress: | Text being edited 
|
| Notes: | Gathered and wikified using an automated tool. See this documentation for more information. |
Start a discussion about Rea v. The Eclipse/Opinion of the Court
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikisource the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve Rea v. The Eclipse/Opinion of the Court.
