THE B. & B. NO. 10
| Decision Date | 07 July 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 330.,330. |
| Citation | 121 F.2d 704 |
| Parties | THE B. & B. NO. 10. NEW YORK SCOW CORPORATION v. OLSEN et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Christopher E. Heckman, of New York City (Foley & Martin, of New York City, on the brief), for libelant-appellant.
Earle Farwell, of New York City (Barry, Wainwright, Thacher & Symmers and John C. Crawley, all of New York City, on the brief), for respondents-appellees.
Before L. HAND, CHASE, and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
In the libel herein, libelant, as owner of the barge claimed collision damages against the two respondents, each alleged to be a resident of the district and within the court's jurisdiction, as owners of the tug "Dorothy." After describing the circumstances of the collision in the New York State Barge Canal on August 20, 1936, and making its claim for the cost of repairs and other expenses in approximately the sum of $500, libeland goes on to allege that heretofore and on or about July 23, 1937, it had filed a libel in the court below as owner of the barges and against the tug "Dorothy" to recover damages sustained by these barges as a result of the same collision, that the respondents herein filed a claim of ownership of the tug "Dorothy" in said action, that the said action duly proceeded to trial on the merits and resulted in a decision in which the "Dorothy" was held solely at fault for the collision, that thereafter an interlocutory decree and subsequently a final decree were duly entered, and that "by reason thereof the matter now at issue has become res judicata as between the libelant and the respondents herein." Upon exceptions to this libel the court found for the respondents, on the ground that libelant was attempting to "split its cause of action," but expressly gave libelant permission to amend. Libelant did not avail itself of the privilege given and, judgment of dismissal being entered, appeals herein.
The sole question herein is the effect of the previous judgment, which libelant relies on as conclusively showing fault against the respondents, but not as barring further recovery. Its claim on the latter issue is that, since the former action was in rem against the vessel, the present action in personam against the owners is not barred. It is quite clear that, if this were an ordinary action for damage, since the parties are in substance the same and the loss arises out of the one accident, the matter would be considered single and only one recovery would be allowed. Brannenburg v. Indianapolis, Pittsburgh & Cleveland R. R. Co., 13 Ind. 103, 74 Am.Dec. 250; Barnard v. Devine, 34 Misc. 182, 68 N.Y.S. 859; Farrington v. Payne, 15 Johns., N.Y., 431; Knowlton v. New York & N. E. R. Co., 147 Mass. 606, 18 N.E. 580, 1 L.R.A. 625; Clark, Code Pleading, 318-324, 329-332. The substantial issue here is whether or not the peculiar jurisdiction of admiralty changes this well settled rule of repose and allows unnecessary and duplicating legal proceedings.
Since appellant introduced the issue here in its libel, it was necessary for it to go on to make such answer as it had to the issue it had raised. Hughes v. Roosevelt, 2 Cir., 107 F.2d 901; The Sydfold, 2 Cir., 86 F.2d 611. Under the allegations herein, and in view of libelant's failure to avail itself of the privilege of amending, we may take it as concluded that libelant did obtain the complete remedy and satisfaction it sought in the earlier action. And under present admiralty procedure it could have amended that libel and pursued any other remedies it thought it might have under the circumstances, including, if it so desired, the bringing in of respondents in personam in the action in rem. Admiralty Rules 14, 23, 56, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723; Fyfe v. Pan-Atlantic S. S. Corp., 2 Cir., 114 F.2d 72, 75, certiorari denied 311 U.S. 711, 61 S.Ct. 319, 85 L.Ed. ___. True, before the change in the rules in 1920, and under former Rule 15, proceedings in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Empresa Naviera Santa S.A.
... ... Central Hudson cannot, of course, simply execute on the in rem judgment against a defendant not yet found to be liable. See Cooper v. Reynolds, 77 U.S. (10 Wall.) 308, 318, 19 L.Ed. 931 (1870) ("[T]he judgment of the court, though in form a personal judgment against the defendant, has no effect beyond the property attached in that suit. No general execution can be issued for any balance unpaid after the attached property is exhausted."). Therefore, ... ...
-
Weissinger v. United States
... ... g., Pippin v. United States, 74 App.D.C. 131, 121 F.2d 98, we believe this criterion is clearly incorrect. See Hatchitt v. United States, 9 Cir., 158 F.2d 754; Buchanan v. General Motors Corp., 2 Cir., 158 F. 2d 728; The B. & B. No. 10, 2 Cir., 121 F.2d 704; "Developments in the Law — Res Judicata," 65 Harv.L.Rev. 818, 826. We recognize, on the other hand, that in some situations a second action is not barred by a former judgment when the complaints are identical save for the inclusion of certain additional facts in the second ... ...
-
U.S. v. Banco Internacional/Bital S.A.
... ... Treasury Dept.) inquired into his actions. (Facts ¶ 6.) Martinez also advised the informant to send checks in uneven amounts between $55,000 and $60,000, instead of the larger sized checks that the informant suggested. (Complt. ¶ 40; see also Facts ¶ 10.) ... Martinez was unable to involve other Bital employees even though the Government requested that Martinez do so. (Facts ¶ 7.) The Government also sought to draft another employee, Luis Carlos Rivas, into Operation Casablanca. (Facts ¶¶ 11,12.) Rivas was a trainee at the ... ...
-
Estevez v. Nabers
... ... g., Pippin v. United States, 74 App.D.C. 131, 121 F.2d 98, we believe this criterion is clearly incorrect. See Hatchitt v. United States, 9 Cir., 158 F. 2d 754; Buchanan v. General Motors Corp., 2 Cir., 158 F.2d 728; The B. & B. No. 10, 2 Cir., 121 F.2d 704; "Developments in the Law — Res Judicata," 65 Harv.L.Rev. 818, 826. We recognize, on the other hand, that in some situations a second action is not barred by a former judgment when the complaints are identical save for the inclusion of certain additional facts in the second ... ...