Afran Transport Co. v. The Bergechief
| Decision Date | 28 December 1960 |
| Docket Number | 26374.,Dockets 26373,87,No. 86,86 |
| Citation | 285 F.2d 119 |
| Parties | AFRAN TRANSPORT CO., as owner of The S.S. Burgan, etc., Libelant-Appellant, v. THE Motor Tanker BERGECHIEF, A/S Sneffon, Claimant-Appellee. A/S SNEFFON, as owner of The Motor Tanker Bergechief, Cross-Libelant-Appellee, v. THE S.S. BURGAN and Afran Transport Co., Cross-Claimant-Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Stanley R. Wright, of Burlingham, Hupper & Kennedy, New York City (H. Barton Williams and John S. Rogers, of Burlingham, Hupper & Kennedy, New York City, on the brief), for Afran Transport Co., appellant.
MacDonald Deming, of Haight, Gardner, Poor & Havens, New York City (Richard G. Ashworth and Terence J. Creighton, of Haight, Gardner, Poor & Havens, New York City, on the brief), for A/S Sneffon, appellee.
Before CLARK, WATERMAN, and FRIENDLY, Circuit Judges.
Libelant and claimant's vessels were involved in a collision which has been adjudicated as one of mutual fault requiring the division of damages, although the fault of the libelant's vessel was gross and that of claimant's vessel less clear. Afran Transport Co. v. The Bergechief, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 170 F.Supp. 893, affirmed 2 Cir., 274 F.2d 469. Libelant's vessel sustained the greater damage, so that on the stipulated amounts a balance was due libelant of $69,203. It therefore sought interest to run prior to the final decree,1 but Judge Dimock declined to award any interest prior to its entry, holding as authorities therefor The Wright, 2 Cir., 109 F.2d 699, and Canadian Aviator, Ltd. v. United States, 2 Cir., 187 F.2d 100, certiorari denied 342 U.S. 813, 72 S.Ct. 27, 96 L.Ed. 615, with a reference also to Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc. v. The Esso Camden, 2 Cir., 244 F.2d 198, 202, certiorari denied 355 U.S. 822, 78 S.Ct. 29, 2 L.Ed.2d 37.
Possibly Judge Dimock in his brief memorandum may have stated the rule too rigidly; in The Wright, supra, 2 Cir., 109 F.2d 699, we cited the usual rule that interest in admiralty was a matter of the court's discretion and stressed that it must be a legal discretion, rather than one merely at will. So normally the award of interest may await the court's judgment which fixes the amount due. But we would not exclude all discretion in the mutual fault collision case; thus if one vessel is grossly at fault the award of interest to the other may ameliorate somewhat the harsh American rule that division of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
COMPLAINT OF BFT NO. TWO CORP.
...of the divided damages rule. Iberian Tankers Co. v. Gates Constr. Co., 504 F.2d 747 (2d Cir. 1974); Afran Transport Co. v. The Bergechief, 285 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1960). However, absent unusual circumstances, this factor should no longer be considered in light of the proportionate fault annou......
-
Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc. v. Richardson
...interest only from the date of the decree, June 3, 1960. 6 See, e. g., The Wright, 2 Cir., 1940, 109 F.2d 699; Afran Transport Co. v. The Bergechief, 2 Cir., 1960, 285 F.2d 119; Geotechnical Corp. of Delaware v. Pure Oil Co., 5 Cir., 1954, 214 F.2d 476; The President Madison, 9 Cir., 1937, ......
-
Alkmeon Naviera, S.A. v. M/V Marina L
...J.).12 Mutual fault is also occasionally listed as a reason for denying prejudgment interest. See, e.g., Afran Transport Co. v. The Bergechief, 285 F.2d 119, 120 (2d Cir. 1960). The Supreme Court, however, has long approved prejudgment interest in mutual fault cases. See The Manitoba, 122 U......
-
INTERNATIONAL ORE & FERTILIZER v. SGS CONTROL SERV., No. 87 Civ. 6391 (CHT).
...parties are damaged." Iberian Tankers Co. v. Gates Constr. Corp., 504 F.2d 747, 747 (2d Cir.1974); see also Afran Transport Co. v. The Bergechief, 285 F.2d 119 (2d Cir.1960). These cases base their reasoning upon The Wright, 109 F.2d 699 (2d Cir.1940). As Judge Clark explained in that case,......