Anglo-American and Overseas Corporation v. United States, 155
| Decision Date | 04 March 1957 |
| Docket Number | Docket 24194.,No. 155,155 |
| Citation | 242 F.2d 236 |
| Parties | ANGLO-AMERICAN and OVERSEAS CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Leonard Feldman, New York City, for plaintiff-appellant.
Paul W. Williams, U. S. Atty. for Southern District of New York, New York City (Miriam R. Goldman and Amos J. Peaslee, Jr., Asst. U. S. Attys., New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellee.
Before CLARK, Chief Judge, MEDINA, Circuit Judge, and J. JOSEPH SMITH, District Judge.
Anglo-American and Overseas Corp., appellant, contracted to sell tomato paste to the United States, which required as a condition precedent to its acceptance of the paste that it satisfy the standards of the Food and Drug Administration. The paste was imported; and the Food and Drug Administration, after sampling it, issued "release notices" that notified Customs officers that the tomato paste could enter the country. Anglo-American then accepted delivery. When it in turn delivered the paste to the government, federal officials once again inspected the paste, found that it did not satisfy the standards of the Food and Drug Administration, and ordered it destroyed. Anglo-American sues now on the ground that the negligence of officials of the Food and Drug Administration in sampling the tomato paste and in issuing "release notices" induced it to accept the paste and thus suffer damages.
This claim, it is clear, "arose out of" the assertedly negligent representation of the quality of the tomato paste by federal employees. Such a claim is barred by Jones v. United States, 2 Cir., 207 F.2d 563, certiorari denied 347 U.S. 921, 74 S.Ct. 518, 98 L.Ed. 1075, which held that Section 2680(h) of the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C., excepted from liability negligent as well as intentional misrepresentation.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Griffin v. U.S.
...696, 68 S.Ct. 331, 92 L.Ed. 297 (1948); Anglo-American & Overseas Corp. v. United States, 144 F.Supp. 635 (S.D.N.Y.1956), aff'd, 242 F.2d 236 (2d Cir. 1957).As the district court wrote, 'it is clear that the conduct of DBS in releasing Lot 56 in violation of 42 C.F.R. 73.114(b)(1)(iii) was ......
-
Dorking Genetics v. U.S.
...United States v. Neustadt, 366 U.S. 696, 706-07, 81 S.Ct. 1294, 1300, 6 L.Ed.2d 614 (1961); Anglo-American & Overseas Corp. v. United States, 242 F.2d 236, 237 (2d Cir.1957) (denying claim for damages from destruction of tomato paste imported in reliance on import "release notices" issued b......
-
Marival, Inc. v. Planes, Inc., Civ. A. No. 12189.
...but the injuries arose from the misrepresentation and not the negligent conduct. See, also, Anglo-American & Overseas Corp. v. United States, 242 F.2d 236 (2d Cir. 1957). An interesting case for illustrative purposes is Coastwise Packet Co. v. United States, 277 F.Supp. 920 (D. Mass.1968), ......
-
Fina Air Inc. v. U.S.
...therefore certify Fina's personnel when in fact it turned out that Pan Am was not certifled.6 See also Anglo-American & Overseas Corp. v. United States, 242 F.2d 236 (2nd Cir.1957),(holding that misrepresentation was essential to plaintiffs claim). According to these findings it is clear th......