Ferrer v. Waterman SS Corp.
Decision Date | 06 April 1948 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 3741,4034,4035. |
Citation | 76 F. Supp. 601 |
Parties | FERRER et al. v. WATERMAN S. S. CORPORATION. TORRES et al. v. SAME. ALGARIN et al. v. SAME. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
Arturo Ortiz Toro, of San Juan, P. R., for plaintiffs.
James R. Beverley, of San Juan, P. R., for Waterman S. S. Corporation.
Philip F. Herrick, U. S. Atty., of San Juan, P. R., for U. S. of America.
The matter before the Court is upon the motion of the defendant Waterman Steamship Corporation and the United States of America, intervenor, praying
(1) that the Waterman Steamship Corporation be permitted to amend its answer to the complaints of the three consolidated causes by adding thereto special defenses under sections 9 and 11 of the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947, Public Law No. 49, 80th Congress, approved May 14, 1947, 29 U.S. C.A. § 251 et seq.
(2) that the District Court grant a rehearing for the purpose of taking testimony and hearing argument in connection with the aforesaid special defenses.
Two questions arise in the disposition of this motion: (1) did the plaintiffs obtain a vested right by the judgment entered by the District Court on April 25, 1947, and the amended judgment dated May 12, 1947; and (2) are sections 9 and 11 of the Portal-to-Portal Act constitutional.
The plaintiffs claim that the statutory right to recover compensation or damages is indestructible by the repeal of the Statute, once the event or transaction has occurred to which the statute applies and that causes of action which arise therefrom come within the protection of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
The record discloses the following: the judgment in the consolidated causes was entered on April 25, 1947. On May 12, 1947, an amended judgment was entered making designated awards of indebtedness and liquidated damages to certain plaintiffs whose names and amounts appear in a list attached thereto and dismissing the complaints as to all plaintiffs not so named or listed.
The defendant Waterman Steamship Corporation filed its first notice of appeal on May 5, 1947 and an amended notice of appeal on May 15, 1947.
The United States filed its notice of appeal on May 16, 1947.
On July 31, 1947 the mandate of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit was entered directing the return of the record to the District Court for the purpose of further proceedings and commanding that such further proceedings be had in said consolidated causes in conformity with the order and mandate, as according to right and justice, and the laws of the United States, ought to be had, the said consolidated appeals notwithstanding.
Did the plaintiffs acquire a vested right in the judgment entered on April 25, 1947 and the amended judgment entered on May 12, 1947 or, put in another way, were the judgments entered on April 25 and May 12, 1947 final judgments.
In Kennedy Coal Corp. v. Buckhorn Coal Corp., 140 Va. 37, 124 S.E. 482, 484, upon the question of what constituted a vested right, the Court said:
In Carroll Elec. Co. v. Snelling, 62 F.2d 413, a case decided by the Circuit Court of Appeals, 1st Circuit, on December 17, 1932, the Court quoted with approval the case of Allen v. Reed, 60 App.D.C. 346, 54 F.2d 713, 714, wherein the Court said:
In Western Union Tel. Co. v. L. & N. R. Co., 258 U.S. 13, 18, 42 S.Ct. 258, 259, 66 L.Ed. 437, the Court speaking through Mr. Justice McKenna made the following terse comment:
In 3 Am.Jur. paragraph 1157, the rule is set out as follows:
"* * * both reason and the weight of authority point to the view that the case must be determined in the light of the law as it exists at the time of the decision of the appellate court, where the statute changing the law is intended to be retroactive and applied to pending litigation, or is retroactive in its effect; and this is true though it may result in the reversal of a judgment which was correct at the time it was rendered by the trial court."
In People ex rel. Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Lindheimer, 1939, 371 Ill. 367, 21 N.E.2d 318, 321, 124 A.L.R. 1472, the rule as set out in 3 Am.Jur. was applied and the Court rejected the contention that the Appellate Court should adjudicate the case upon the law as it existed at the time of the judgment in the trial court, and the Court said:
See also National Carloading Corp. v. Phoenix-El Paso Express, 1944, 142 Tex. 141, 176 S.W.2d 564, 570, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kemp v. Day & Zimmerman, Inc.
... ... practice. Battery Workers' Union v. Electric Storage ... Batteries Corp., D.C.E.D.Pa., Jan. 30, 1948, 78 F.Supp. 947 ... Defendant's motion for judgment was granted. The ... We find no contrary holdings ... In Ferrer v ... Waterman S. S. Co., U.S. D.C., District of Puerto Rico, April ... 6, 1948, 76 F.Supp. 601, ... ...
-
Thomas v. Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corp.
...72 F.Supp. 752; Elting v. North American Aviation, Inc., D.C.D.Kan.1947, 13 CCH Labor Cases Par. 64,154; Ferrer v. Waterman Steamship Corp., D.C.D. Puerto Rico 1948, 76 F.Supp. 601; Fisch v. General Motors Corp., D.C.E.D. Mich.1948, 76 F.Supp. 178; Grazeski v. Federal Shipbuilding & Dry Doc......
-
Mirabal v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.
...Ferrer v. Waterman S.S. Corp., 76 F.Supp. 601, 603 (D.P.R.1948). This reasoning seems persuasive in the present situation. Civil actions under the Truth in Lending Act are rights created by Congress. Congress can repeal, amend or modify these rights in any way it sees fit. Under the reasoni......
-
Ferrer v. Waterman SS Corporation
...total sum of $36,958.88. Ferrer v. Waterman Steamship Corporation, D.C., 70 F.Supp. 1. Thereafter, pursuant to a ruling by this Court, 76 F.Supp. 601, the defendant set up two special defenses under Sections 9 and 11 of the Portal-to-Portal Act approved May 14, 1947, 29 U.S.C.A. 258, 260, a......