American Smelting & Refining Co. v. Philippine Air Lines, Inc.

• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Citation: American Smelting & Refining Co. v. Philippine Air Lines, Inc., 153 N.Y.S.2d 900, 1 N.Y.2d 866, 136 N.E.2d 14 (N.Y. 1956)
• Decision Date: 08 June 1956
• Parties: , 136 N.E.2d 14 AMERICAN SMELTING & REFINING COMPANY, Appellant, v. PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, Inc., Manila, Respondent. CHASE NATIONAL BANK, Appellant, v. PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, Inc., Respondent. IRVING TRUST CO., et al., Appellants v. PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, Inc., Respondent. BANK OF AMERICA, N. T. & S. A. et al., Appellants, v. PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, Inc., Respondent. BANQUE BELGE POUR L' ETRANGER (OVERSEAS, Ltd.) et al., Appellants v. PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, Inc., Respondent. AMERICAN EXPRESS CO., Inc., et al., Appellants, v. PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, Inc., Respondent.

Page 900

153 N.Y.S.2d 900

1 N.Y.2d 866, 136 N.E.2d 14

AMERICAN SMELTING & REFINING COMPANY, Appellant, v. PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, Inc., Manila, Respondent.

CHASE NATIONAL BANK, Appellant, v. PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, Inc., Respondent.

IRVING TRUST CO., et al., Appellants v. PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, Inc., Respondent.

BANK OF AMERICA, N. T. & S. A. et al., Appellants, v. PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, Inc., Respondent.

BANQUE BELGE POUR L' ETRANGER (OVERSEAS, Ltd.) et al., Appellants v. PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, Inc., Respondent.

AMERICAN EXPRESS CO., Inc., et al., Appellants, v. PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, Inc., Respondent.

Court of Appeals of New York.

June 8, 1956.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 285 App.Div. 1119, 141 N.Y.S.2d 818.

Actions wer brought to recover for the loss of a cargo of gold as the result of a crash of aircraft of defendant.

The Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County, Part X, Isidor Wasservogel, Special Referee, entered judgments in favor of the defendant, and the plaintiffs appealed.

The Appellate Division, 285 App.Div. 1119, 141 N.Y.S.2d 818, affirmed the judgments.

The Appellate Division, 286 App.Div. 1002, 145 N.Y.S.2d 312, denied motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals.

The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals, contending that the language of Articles 8 and 9 of the Warsaw Convention, 49 Stat. 3016, 3017, is so plain and unambiguous that its meaning may not be changed by construction, and that Special Referee committed reversible error in changing the construction, and that if the Court of Appeals should determine that there was room for construction of the material provisions of the Warsaw Convention, a true construction thereof required a holding that there can be no exclusion or limitation of liability in absence of full compliance with the requirements of Article 8, and that another error below consisted of the ruling that a shipper must separately insure or be satisfied with a limited recovery under Article 22, subparagraph 2.

Bailey & Muller, New York City (Robert F. Doran and John B. Loughran, New York City, of counsel), for appellants.

Dwight, Royall, Harris, Koegel & Caskey, New York City, Colmery & Smith of Topeka, Kan. (Frank C. Fisher, New York City, Harry W. Colmery, Topeka, Kan., Caesar L. Pitassy, New York City, Leo P. Larkin, Jr., and Bernard H. LaLone, Jr., New York City, of counsel), for defendant-respondent Philippine Air Lines.

In each action:

Judgment affirmed,...