Isthmian Steamship Company v. United States
| Decision Date | 30 April 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 265,Docket 27045.,265 |
| Citation | 302 F.2d 69 |
| Parties | ISTHMIAN STEAMSHIP COMPANY, Libelant-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee. STATES MARINE CORPORATION, Libelant-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
E. L. Smith of Kirlin, Campbell & Keating, New York City, for libelants-appellants.
William H. Postner, Atty., Admiralty & Shipping Section, Dept. of Justice (William H. Orrick, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert M. Morgenthau, U. S. Atty., Morton S. Hollander, Chief, Appellate Section, Civil Div., Dept. of Justice, Louis E. Greco, Atty. in Charge, New York Office, Admiralty & Shipping Section, Dept. of Justice, and Philip A. Berns, Atty., Dept. of Justice, on the brief), for respondent-appellee.
Before MEDINA, SMITH and HAYS, Circuit Judges.
Two ocean carriers appeal from dismissal by the District Court for the Southern District of New York, Sylvester J. Ryan, Chief Judge, of admiralty actions on claims against the United States for ocean freight and pier demurrage. We hold that the claims were properly held time-barred and affirm the judgment.
Timely libels were filed on certain freight and demurrage claims, on which recovery was eventually had. While the actions were pending, amended libels were filed adding claims on deliveries made and demurrage earned more than two years prior to the amendments. These claims were dismissed as untimely. Because the Government, after each of these claims had accrued, made entries on its books and notified libelants of offsets of cargo damage and shortage claims incurred on other voyages, a practice later held invalid in United States v. Isthmian Steamship Co., 359 U.S. 314, 79 S.Ct. 857, 3 L.Ed.2d 845 (1959) libelants contend that these claims are not time-barred. We disagree. The amended libels cannot relate back to the dates of the original libels, since the claims are based on completely distinct freight and demurrage charges arising out of different and independent shipments on other vessels or voyages. The two year period of limitations under the Suits in Admiralty Act is a jurisdictional limitation and cannot be waived. American Foreign SS Co. v. United States, 291 F.2d 598, 603 (2 Cir. 1961), cert. denied 368 U.S. 895, 82 S.Ct. 171, 7 L.Ed.2d 92, States Marine Corp. v. United States, 283 F.2d 776 (2 Cir. 1960), Sgambati v. United States, 172 F.2d 297 (2 Cir. 1949), ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crown Coat Front Co. v. United States
...Act, we would be required to overrule the law of this circuit laid down in States Marine and reaffirmed in Isthmian S. S. Co. v. United States, 302 F.2d 69 (2 Cir. 1962) if we were to grant relief to the appellant After final briefs had been filed by the parties the Third Circuit handed dow......
-
McCormick v. U.S.
...States, 498 F.2d 520 (9th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1070, 95 S.Ct. 656, 42 L.Ed.2d 665 (1974), and Isthmian Steamship Co. v. United States, 302 F.2d 69 (2d Cir. 1962). Whether the two year limitations period in § 745 is subject to equitable principles of construction appears to be ......
-
Szyka v. U.S. Secretary of Defense, 123
...States, 446 F.2d 1195, 1197 (2d Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 1018, 92 S.Ct. 1300, 31 L.Ed.2d 481 (1972); Isthmian Steamship Co. v. United States,302 F.2d 69 (2d Cir. 1962). The Federal Tort Claims Act likewise requires the prior seeking of administrative relief. Morano v. United State......
-
Northern Metal Co. v. United States
...Grace Line, Inc. v. United States, 255 F.2d 810 (2 Cir. 1958).6 The parties each rely on different aspects of Isthmian Steamship Co. v. United States, 302 F.2d 69 (2 Cir. 1962). There as in the present case libelant had entered into successive contracts with the Government, an earlier contr......