Bouas v. Sociedad Maritima San Nicholas, SA
| Decision Date | 07 July 1965 |
| Citation | 252 F. Supp. 286 |
| Parties | Themistocles BOUAS, Plaintiff, v. SOCIEDAD MARITIMA SAN NICHOLAS, S.A. and P. D. Marchessini & Co., Inc., Defendants. Themistocles BOUAS, Plaintiff, v. Panaghi D. MARCHESSINI, Demetri P. Marchessini and Alexander P. Marchessini, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Lebovici & Safir, New York City, Isaac Salem, New York City, of counsel, for plaintiff.
Poles, Tublin & Patestides, New York City, John G. Poles, New York City, of counsel, for defendants.
This action was instituted by the filing of a complaint on November 23, 1960. The defendants answered on January 9, 1961, and thereafter commenced a history of pre-trial litigation out of all proportion to the nature of the claim, and which appears, at least in part, to have been designed to delay and burden the plaintiff. Some of the history is told in Judge Sugarman's opinion of March 7, 1963. On February 20, 1963 a second action was instituted against the defendants as individuals, and the two actions were consolidated on April 6, 1964. The consolidated action is now on the calendar and is due to be reached for trial in the near future.
Having obtained leave from the Part I Judge, the defendants have now moved for summary judgment or, in the alternative, for an order granting them leave to amend their answer to allege res judicata and accord and satisfaction as affirmative defenses. Defendants' motions are based on "newly discovered evidence", which is that on April 18, 1961 a hearing was held before a Greek magistrate, at which the plaintiff appeared without an attorney, agreed to settle his claim against the defendants for 19,035 drachmas ($635.40), which was paid to him, and released the defendants.
The report of the April 18, 1961 proceeding before the Greek magistrate shows that plaintiff was not represented by counsel and that the amount of the settlement was ridiculously low. There is little, if any, doubt that plaintiff was unaware of what he was doing. Accordingly, the so-called Greek settlement was not an accord and satisfaction; Garrett v. Moore-McCormack Co., 317 U.S. 239, 63 S.Ct. 246, 87 L.Ed. 239 (1942); nor is the Court bound by it as res judicata. Perdikouris v. Liberian S.S. Olympos, 185 F.Supp. 140 (E.D.Va., 1960).
It appears that present counsel for the defendants were substituted in early 1962 and actively participated in many of the pre-trial proceedings above referred to without mentioning to plaintiff's attorneys the so-called Greek settlement. Although defendants' counsel have informed the Court that they did not learn of the Greek proceeding until October 1964, their clients must have known about it, and in the Court's view defendants' attorneys are chargeable with the knowledge of their clients for the purposes of this motion. The defendants, having burdened the plaintiff with pre-trial procedures over the years after the alleged settlement was made without informing plaintiff's attorneys about it, should not now be allowed to deny the plaintiff his day in court.1 Indeed, the history of the litigation shows conclusively that the defendants have been guilty of laches and that their motions are without merit.
Defendants' motions for summary judgment and for leave to amend their answers are both denied. It is so ordered.
On Defendants' Motion for Reargument.
By Memorandum filed on April 23, 1965, defendants' motion for summary judgment on the grounds of res judicata and accord and satisfaction, or, in the alternative, for leave to amend their answer to plead these defenses, was denied.
On May 25, 1965, defendants moved for reargument and for an order certifying the Court's decision on their original motion for appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
It is noted that defendants' notice of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O'Toole v. Karnani (In re Trinsum Grp., Inc.)
...should be freely granted at the court's discretion when justice so requires. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). See Bouas v. Sociedad Maritima San Nicholas, S.A., 252 F.Supp. 286, 287 (S.D.N.Y.1965). In these adversary proceedings, the Distributing Agent can plead additional facts to cure some of the d......
-
Ben P. Fyke & Sons, Inc. v. Gunter Co.
...Mich. 412, 414--415, 198 N.W. 947 (1924).6 See, E.g., Cooke v. Spears, 2 Cal. 409 (1852).7 Contrast Bouas v. Sociedad Maritima San Nicholas, S.A., 252 F.Supp. 286, 287 (S.D.N.Y..1965); cert. den. 382 U.S. 1025, 86 S.Ct. 646, 15 L.Ed.2d 539 (1966): 'The defendants, having burdened the plaint......
-
Marcial Ucin, S.A. v. SS Galicia
...the movant would be guilty of laches. Vozeh v. Good Samaritan Hospital, 84 F.R.D. 143 (S.D.N.Y.1979); Bouas v. Sociedad Maritima San Nicholas, S.A., 252 F.Supp. 286 (S.D.N.Y.1965). Iberbroker filed a general appearance through its attorney on May 24, 1974. On May 17, 1978, Somerset and GALI......
-
U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. App Int'l Fin. Co.
...was issued. This, in and of itself, precludes the extension of comity to the Indonesian injunction. See Bouas v. Sociedad Maritima San Nicholas, S.A., 252 F.Supp. 286, 287 (S.D.N.Y.1965) ( “Defendants (1) having failed to inform the Greek court of the action here, and (2) having failed to r......