Court Opinion

ID: 9652897
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:34:34.412637+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:54.890745
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing.
PER CURIAM.
The appellants argue that the seizure of their vessels through a putative abuse of process, must have taken place on navigable waters, and that for that reason it was within the jurisdiction of the district court as a tort cognizable in the admiralty. No such argument has been even intimated up to this time, and of course it was not before us when we wrote the opinion. We decline to consider it now, as a basis for reversal. However, if the appellants are so disposed, they may file an independent libel in the district court, alleging such a maritime tort, and it will be understotod that nothing in our opinion shall be taken as supporting, or denying, the jurisdiction of that court over such a suit. Moreover, the district court, if satisfied as to its jurisdiction, will be free to exercise its discretion to hear the evidence in that suit at the same time as the evidence in the foreclosure suit.
In all other respects the petition for rehearing is denied.
Petition denied.