Barbarino v. Stanhope SS Co.
| Decision Date | 04 June 1945 |
| Docket Number | No. 344.,344. |
| Citation | 150 F.2d 54 |
| Parties | BARBARINO v. STANHOPE S. S. CO., Limited, et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Reid, Cunningham & Freehill, of New York City (Frederick H. Cunningham, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Paul C. Matthews, of New York City, for appellee.
Before SWAN, CHASE, and FRANK, Circuit Judges.
Barbarino, a longshoreman, filed his libel against Stanhope Steamship Company, Ltd., to recover damages for personal injuries sustained while working on the respondent's vessel. The respondent impleaded the libellant's employer, Northern Dock Company. After a trial the court announced its decision, awarding the libellant damages in the amount of $12,000 and dismissing the respondent's petition against the impleaded respondent. Upon a motion by the libellant for a reconsideration of the amount of damages, the court ordered a new trial of the issues between the libellant and the respondent only. This order was entered December 8, 1944. The respondent moved for a reconsideration of this order. Its motion was denied January 23, 1945 and on January 29th it appealed from both orders.
The court lacks jurisdiction to review these orders. Only final orders are appealable under 28 U.S.C.A. § 225 and only interlocutory decrees "determining the rights and liabilities of the parties" under 28 U.S.C.A. § 227. Obviously the granting of a new trial was neither a final order nor an interlocutory decree which determines any rights and liabilities between the libellant and respondent. See Fairmount Glass Works v. Cub Fork Coal Co., 287 U.S. 474, 481, 53 S.Ct. 252, 77 L.Ed. 439; France & Canada S. S. Co. v. French Republic, 2 Cir., 285 F. 290, 294, certiorari denied 261 U.S. 615, 43 S.Ct. 361, 67 L.Ed. 828; The Maria, 2 Cir., 67 F.2d 571; The Natchez, 5 Cir., 78 F. 183. A fortiori the order denying the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kanatser v. Chrysler Corp., 4434.
...665, 6 S.Ct. 901, 29 L.Ed. 1013; Fairmount Glass Works v. Cub Fork Coal Co., 287 U.S. 474, 53 S.Ct. 252, 77 L.Ed. 439; Barbarino v. Stanhope S. S. Co., 2 Cir., 150 F.2d 54. But, it is well settled in this and other jurisdictions that if the court purports to grant a motion for new trial on ......
-
Ford Motor Co. v. Busam Motor Sales, 11100.
...seen in the following situations: It is settled law that an appeal does not lie from an order granting a new trial. Barbarino v. Stanhope S. S. Co., 2 Cir., 150 F.2d 54; Howell v. Terminal R. Association, 8 Cir., 155 F.2d 807; Florini v. Stegner, 3 Cir., 82 F.2d 708; Long v. Davis, 9 Cir., ......
-
Mattox v. News Syndicate Co.
...Randall Co. v. Fogelsong Mach. Co., 6 Cir., 216 F. 601, 603; Barnard v. United States, 9 Cir., 162 F. 618, 626. 28 Barbarino v. Stanhope S. S. Co., 2 Cir., 150 F.2d 54. 29 Woodworth v. Chesbrough, 244 U.S. 79, 37 S.Ct. 583, 61 L.Ed. 1005; Chickasha Cotton Oil Co. v. Chapman, 5 Cir., 4 F.2d ......
-
Grace Lines, Inc. v. Motley
...U.S.App.D.C. 110, 409 F.2d 145, 147 (D.C.Cir.) cert. denied, 396 U.S. 835, 90 S.Ct. 93, 24 L.Ed.2d 85 (1969); Barbarino v. Stanhope S. S. Co. Ltd., 150 F.2d 54 (2d Cir. 1945); 3 W. Barron & A. Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1302.1 at 346. But the purpose of the All Writs Act, 28......