Calderone v. NAVIERA VACUBA S/A
| Citation | 328 F.2d 578 |
| Decision Date | 17 February 1964 |
| Docket Number | Docket 27689.,No. 48,48 |
| Parties | Salvatore CALDERONE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NAVIERA VACUBA S/A and Republica de Cuba, Defendants. NAVIERA VACUBA S/A, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MAHER STEVEDORING CO., Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Hanlon & Dawe, Alexander, Ash & Schwartz, New York City (Sidney A. Schwartz, New York City, of counsel), for Maher Stevedoring.
Kirlin, Campbell & Keating, New York City (Matthew L. Danahar and Charles N. Fiddler, New York City, of counsel), for Naviera Vacuba.
Before CLARK,* MOORE and KAUFMAN, Circuit Judges.
Cross-petitions by Maher Stevedoring Co., Inc., third-party defendant-appellant, and Naviera Vacuba S/A, third-party plaintiff-appellee, for rehearing, modification and clarification. Both petitions granted.
Maher asks that the court reconsider its allowance of appellate counsel fees to the shipowner, Naviera Vacuba S/A because, Naviera, having withdrawn its appeal from plaintiff's judgment against it, was solely concerned on appeal with its claim over against the stevedore Maher. The usual rule is that the obligation of the stevedore, if liable, extends to indemnifying the shipowner, which indemnity includes the litigation expenses of defending the suit brought against the shipowner. Paliaga v. Luckenbach Steamship Company, 301 F.2d 403 (2 Cir. 1962) and cases cited therein. As a footnote in that opinion, although the facts involved indemnity for defending against the plaintiff Paliaga, the court said:
The award of appellate counsel fees for resisting Maher's appeal does not technically come within the category of the shipowner prosecuting its own claim against the stevedore. Nevertheless, as Maher points out, the fees were incurred exclusively in the shipowner-stevedore controversy. Such fees would not be included within the indemnity obligations.
The opinion is thus...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Matimak Trading Co. v. Khalily
...and Murarka was similarly crucial in Calderone v. Naviera Vacuba S/A, 325 F.2d 76 (2d Cir.1963), modified on other grounds, 328 F.2d 578 (2d Cir.1964) (per curiam), where we sustained alienage jurisdiction in a suit between a Cuban corporation and an American company. The court Consideratio......
-
Reid v. Quebec Paper Sales & Transportation Company
...fees on this appeal. This we refuse to do. Misurella v. Isthmian Lines, Inc., 328 F.2d 40 (2 Cir. 1964) and Calderone v. Naviera Vacuba S/A, 328 F.2d 578 (2 Cir. 1964) establish that the costs on appeal are not included within the stevedoring company's indemnity obligation when the only "ac......
-
Isthmian Lines, Inc. v. Schirmer Stevedoring Co.
...indemnity, is well recognized. (Nicroli v. Den Norske Afrika-Og Australielinie, etc. (2 Cir. 1964) 332 F.2d 651; Calderone v. Naviera Vacuba S/A (2 Cir. 1964) 328 F.2d 578; Misurella v. Isthmian Lines, Inc. (2 Cir. 1964) 328 F.2d 40; Duvernay v. Alcoa Steamship Co. (E.D.La.1963) 217 F.Supp.......
-
Brattoli v. Kheel
...attorney's fees and disbursements incurred by the ship. De Gioia v. U. S. Lines Co., 304 F.2d 421 (2d Cir.1962); Calderone v. Naviera Vacuba S/A, 328 F.2d 578 (1964). If agreement is not reached between attorneys for I.T.O. and the attorneys for the Bull Line's trustees, either party may re......