Admiral Oriental Line v. Atlantic Gulf & Oriental SS Co.
| Decision Date | 17 February 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 114.,114. |
| Citation | 88 F.2d 26,1937 AMC 289 |
| Parties | ADMIRAL ORIENTAL LINE v. ATLANTIC GULF & ORIENTAL S. S. CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Kirlin, Campbell, Hickox, Keating & McGrann, of New York City, for appellant.
Hunt, Hill & Betts, of New York City, and the United States Attorney, New York, for appellee.
Before L. HAND, SWAN, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.
After this cause went back to the District Court, a question arose as to interest and costs. The United States contends that it cannot be liable for either because the recovery was under the Tucker Act (24 Stat. 505), which does not allow them. It also objects to an attorney's allowance of $100, which, though proper in admiralty, is not at common law. This motion is to clear up these points. As to the original action of the Admiral Oriental Line against the Atlantic Gulf & Oriental Steamship Company, there can be no doubt that the judgment should include interest and costs, although, as the Admiral Oriental Line itself agrees, the docket fee must be cut from $100 to $20. The recovery over of any part of this payment by the Atlantic Gulf & Oriental Steamship Company against the United States must be under the Tucker Act, not in the admiralty, as we have said. We are asked as to that to reconsider our decision, but Minturn v. Maynard, 17 How. 477, 15 L.Ed. 235, still seems to us flat on the point. The report is indeed very short, but it states that the libelant was a general ship's agent and broker, and we can see no material distinction between such an agent and a managing operator; if the case is to be overruled, only the Supreme Court should do it. The position of the United States is therefore right. The Atlantic Gulf & Oriental Steamship Company ought to have paid the Admiral Oriental Line's claim at once; any accrued interest and the costs of the action which it must pay arose from its default. Yet, if it had paid at once, it could have recovered neither interest nor costs against the United States in a suit under the Tucker Act; these would have arisen, it is true, because of the wrongful refusal of the United States to pay a lawful claim, but for reasons good or bad the United States does not choose to make amends for such wrongs. The same is of course à fortiori true of the Atlantic Gulf & Oriental Steamship Company's claim against the United States to recover its direct outlay. Therefore interest and costs will be allowed against the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peralta Shipping Corp. v. Smith & Johnson (Shipping) Corp.
...Line v. United States, 86 F.2d 201 (2d Cir.1936) (L. Hand, J.), modified in other respects sub nom. Admiral Oriental Line v. Atlantic Gulf & Oriental S.S. Co., 88 F.2d 26 (2d Cir.1937). Cory Brothers involved an agreement to act as the vessel's local agent at Pernambuco, Brazil. Under the t......
-
PD MARCHESSINI & CO.,(NY) v. Pacific Marine Corp.
...United States, 86 F.2d 201 (2d Cir. 1936) (L. Hand, J.); The Humboldt, 86 F. 351 (D.Wash.1898). 4 Admiral Oriental Line v. Atlantic Gulf & Oriental S.S. Co., 88 F.2d 26, 27 (2d Cir. 1937). 5 10 F. 848 (S.D.N.Y.1881). 6 The Harvey and Henry, 86 F. 656 (2d Cir. 1898); The Crystal Stream, 25 F......
-
Garcia & Diaz, Inc. v. Empresa Naviera De Cuba
...Co. v. United States, 2 Cir., 51 F.2d 1010; Admiral Oriental Line v. United States, 2 Cir., 86 F.2d 201; Admiral Oriental Line v. Atlantic Gulf & Oriental S. S. Co., 2 Cir., 88 F.2d 26. Libellant argues, first, that the court cannot now determine the existence of a general agency relationsh......
-
Conners Marine Co. v. Petterson Lighterage & Tow. Corp.
...that the section does not apply to appeals. We take this occasion, however, to correct an oversight in Admiral Oriental Line v. Atlantic Gulf & Oriental S. S. Co., 2 Cir., 88 F.2d 26, where we held that no costs whatever are taxable in the district court against the United States under the ......