Barbarino v. Stanhope SS Co.

Decision Date04 June 1945
Docket NumberNo. 344.,344.
Citation150 F.2d 54
PartiesBARBARINO v. STANHOPE S. S. CO., Limited, et al.
CourtU.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.

PER CURIAM.

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
14 cases
  • Kanatser v. Chrysler Corp., 4434.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • January 19, 1953
    ...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.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • December 8, 1950
    ...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.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • March 11, 1949
    ...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
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • March 1, 1971
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT