370 F.2d 121 (5th Cir. 1966), 22522, Pure Oil Co. v. Boyne

Docket Nº:22522, 22583.
Citation:370 F.2d 121
Party Name:The PURE OIL COMPANY, Appellant, v. C. J. BOYNE et al., Appellees. BRENT TOWING COMPANY, Inc., Appellant, v. The PURE OIL COMPANY, Appellee. BRENT TOWING COMPANY, Inc., Claimant, etc., Appellant, v. C. J. BOYNE et al., d/b/a Caribbean Towing Co., Claimants, etc., Appellees.
Case Date:December 06, 1966
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 121

370 F.2d 121 (5th Cir. 1966)

The PURE OIL COMPANY, Appellant,

v.

C. J. BOYNE et al., Appellees.

BRENT TOWING COMPANY, Inc., Appellant,

v.

The PURE OIL COMPANY, Appellee.

BRENT TOWING COMPANY, Inc., Claimant, etc., Appellant,

v.

C. J. BOYNE et al., d/b/a Caribbean Towing Co., Claimants, etc., Appellees.

Nos. 22522, 22583.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

December 6, 1966

H. Barton Williams, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, New Orleans, La., for Pure Oil Co., W. Gerald Gaudet, New Orleans, La., of counsel.

J. Y. Gilmore, Jr., Faris, Ellis, Cutrone, Gilmore & Lautenschlaeger, New Orleans, La., for C. J. Boyne and others.

George A. Frilot, III, Lemle & Kelleher, Eldon T. Harvey, III, New Orleans, La., for Brent Towing Co., Inc.

Before THORNBERRY and COLEMAN, Circuit Judges, and YOUNG, District Judge.

Page 122

THORNBERRY, Circuit Judge.

This litigation arose out of a barge collision which caused the loss of gasoline owned by Pure Oil Company worth $8,900. A barge towed by a tug owned and operated by Caribbean Towing Co. rammed the barge carrying gasoline and towed by the m/v Diana Brent, a tug of the Brent Towing Co. Pure Oil instituted a libel action against Caribbean, which in turn impleaded Brent under Admiralty Rule 56. Thereafter, Brent filed a cross-libel against Pure Oil. The entire matter was tried before the court on June 14 and 15, 1964. On November 3, 1964, the court filed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law to the effect that there was negligence in the operation of both tugs and that damages should be equally divided. However, the court, construing the contractual relationship existing between the various parties involved in the shipment, concluded that Brent was entitled to be relieved of responsibility for its one-half share of the cargo damage. Therefore, Pure Oil could recover only one-half of its damages, those assessed to Caribbean.

Motions by Pure Oil for rehearing and to amend the court's findings were denied in open court on December 18, 1964, such denial being noted by the clerk with a minute entry in the court docket. On February 3, 1965, Pure Oil filed a notice of appeal from the December 18 action of the court. On February 11, the court entered a formal decree embodying the minute entry of December 18. Brent appealed from this formal decree on April 22 and Caribbean filed...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP