Isthmian Steamship Company v. United States, 4
| Decision Date | 06 May 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 4,Docket 24415.,4 |
| Citation | 255 F.2d 816 |
| Parties | ISTHMIAN STEAMSHIP COMPANY, Libelant-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Kirlin, Campbell & Keating, New York City (Clement C. Rinehart and Walter P. Hickey, New York City, of counsel), for libelant-appellee.
George Cochran Doub, Asst. Atty. Gen., Paul W. Williams, U. S. Atty., S. D. New York, New York City, Paul A. Sweeney, Washington, D. C., Benjamin H. Berman, New York City, and Herman Marcuse, Washington, D. C., Attys., Dept. of Justice (Leavenworth Colby, Chief, Admiralty & Shipping Section, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., of counsel), for respondent-appellant.
Before SWAN, MEDINA and WATERMAN, Circuit Judges.
This appeal involves the same questions as were considered in Grace Line, Inc., v. United States, 255 F.2d 810 our opinion in which case is filed herewith. In 1946 Isthmian Steamship Company, appellee, used eight vessels chartered to it on a bareboat basis by the United States through the War Shipping Administration. As a result of Isthmian's use of these vessels for the period from May 1, 1946 to July 31, 1948, the United States claimed $115,203.76 as additional charter hire, which Isthmian refused to pay. When, after carrying certain cargo for the United States in 1953, Isthmian submitted a bill for $116,511.44, the United States withheld the amount allegedly due as additional charter hire. Isthmian thereupon filed the libel below to recover its freight for the 1953 shipments.
Isthmian's libel did not refer to its alleged indebtedness to the United States arising out of the 1946-1948 chartering of the vessels. The government's answer alleged that Isthmian was indebted to the United States because of the earlier transaction between the parties, but Isthmian's exception to this answer was sustained on the ground that the admiralty court had no jurisdiction over the set-off not related to the subject of the libel, and a decree pro confesso followed.
See my separate concurring opinion in Grace Line, Inc., v. United States, 2 Cir., 255 F.2d 815.
Involved in this case is an added issue relative to the jurisdiction of the court below because of a possible...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Eastport Steamship Corporation
...argued together on November 6, 1957. Grace Line, Inc., v. United States of America, 2 Cir., 255 F.2d 810; Isthmian Steamship Company v. United States of America, 2 Cir., 255 F.2d 816; United States of America v. Eastport Steamship Corporation, 2 Cir., 255 F.2d 795; and Isbrandtsen Company, ......
-
United States v. Isthmian Steamship Co
...which had run from the date of the libel to the date of the decree. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed. 255 F.2d 816. The Court of Appeals relied on the authority of a case decided at the same time as the instant case, Grace Line, Inc. v. United States, 2 Cir., ......
-
Sea Trade Corp. v. BETHLEHEM STEEL CO., SHIPBUILDING DIV.
...F.Supp. 732, affirmed 3 Cir., 1959, 265 F.2d 552; Isthmian S.S. Co. v. United States, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1955, 134 F.Supp. 854, affirmed 2 Cir., 1958, 255 F.2d 816, affirmed in part and reversed in part, 1959, 359 U.S. 314, 79 S.Ct. 857, 3 L.Ed.2d 845. Exceptions are in the nature of the common la......
-
Grace Line v. United States
... ... Here the period of limitations had plainly run.4 ... The statutory scheme, such as it is, constitutes no ... Blue Ridge Coal Co., 2 Cir., 159 F.2d 642; 255 F.2d 815 Alcoa Steamship Co. v. United States, D.C., 80 F.Supp. 158, reversed, 2 Cir., 175 F.2d ... ...