Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

198 F.2d 928

Docket No. 10822.

Brabazon v. Belships Co.

Third Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued Sept. 8,1952.

Decided Sept. 17, 1952.

Third Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1952-09-17

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently April 1953

1 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Relies on Gibson v. United States

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1952-09-17

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1See also, D.C., 103 E.Supp. 592.

¶2Thomas E. Byrne, Jr., Philadelphia, Pa. (Krusen, Evans & Shaw, Philadelphia, Pa.,) for appellant.

¶3Freedman, Landy & Lorry, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee.

¶4Before BIGGS, Chief Judge, and KALODNER and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.

¶5' PER CURIAM.

¶6We will enter an order, albeit with some reluctance, granting the motion of the appellant, Belships Co., Ltd., Skibs, A/S, to state the contents of its appendix and to file its brief out of time. In its motion the appellant asserts reasons for its delay which we find none too convincing.

¶7We accept the excuses offered on this occasion by the appellant but we point out that the injuries for which the appellee, a seaman, brought suit were suffered by him on December 29, 1949; nearly three years ago. We reiterate that seamen are wards of the admiralty and for this reason, if there was no other, counsel engaged in litigations in which seamen are concerned, must proceed promptly in preparing and prosecuting appeals to this court. We shall view unnecessary delays with little tolerance.

/198/f2d/928 · .json · Public domain