Kupfermann v. United States

• Decision Date: 07 November 1955
• Docket Number: No. 56-60,Dockets 23535-23539.,56-60
• Citation: 227 F.2d 348
• Parties: Osias KUPFERMANN and Tobias Kupfermann, co-partners doing business under the firm name and style of O. Kupfermann & Sons, Libelants-Appellees, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellant. Azad B. KARABAGUI and Azad B. Karabagui Rug Corporation et al., Libelants-Appellees, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellant. S. B. PENICK & COMPANY et al., Libelants-Appellees, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellant. AVAKIAN BROTHERS, Inc., Libelant-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellant. BALFOUR GUTHRIE & COMPANY, LIMITED, a Corporation, Libelant-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

227 F.2d 348 (1955)

Osias KUPFERMANN and Tobias Kupfermann, co-partners doing business under the firm name and style of O. Kupfermann & Sons, Libelants-Appellees, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellant.

Azad B. KARABAGUI and Azad B. Karabagui Rug Corporation et al., Libelants-Appellees, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellant.

S. B. PENICK & COMPANY et al., Libelants-Appellees, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellant.

AVAKIAN BROTHERS, Inc., Libelant-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellant.

BALFOUR GUTHRIE & COMPANY, LIMITED, a Corporation, Libelant-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellant.

Nos. 56-60, Dockets 23535-23539.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued October 14, 1955.

Decided November 7, 1955.

Yorkston W. Grist, New York City (Hill, Rivkins, Middleton, Louis & Warburton and David L. Maloof, New York City, on the brief), for libelants-appellees Kupfermann and Karabagui.

John W. R. Zisgen, New York City (Bigham, Englar, Jones & Houston, New York City, on the brief), for libelants-appellees S. B. Penick & Co. and others, Avakian Bros., Inc., and Balfour Guthrie & Co., Ltd.

Arthur M. Boal, New York City (J. Edward Lumbard, Jr., U. S. Atty. for the Southern Dist. of New York, and Tompkins, Boal & Tompkins, New York City, on the brief), for respondent-appellant.

Before CLARK, Chief Judge, and FRANK and WATERMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

These are five surviving libels in admiralty out of a substantial additional number brought for loss or damage to cargo by various shippers of goods consisting of rugs, wool, sheep and goatskins, gum, seeds, walnuts, etc., from the Persian Gulf to New York on the Government's S. S. Shickshinny in March and April, 1946. Judge Murphy heard the libels as consolidated for trial and, in a reasoned opinion, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 123 F.Supp. 99, made judicious and discriminating findings against the shippers in certain cases and in their favor in others. The shippers have not appealed, and respondent does not here question liability for various losses involving nondelivery and oil damage. Hence the only questions now remaining are as to recovery allowed for hook-hole damage — a minor item of approximately $1,000, adequately supported in the evidence — and the more substantial claims for water damage, both fresh and salt. Involved here were important and contested issues of fact, such as whether the rain falling at the first port of loading, Khorramshahr, damaged cargo there, whether this affected the cargo taken on some days later at the second port, Basra, whether wet dunnage was taken aboard at the first port and affected the later shipments, the respective portions of the cargo affected, and so on. Judge Murphy made a careful choice among the conflicting versions for reasons which he has set out, in substance refusing recovery for the wet cargo taken on at the first port, but holding the vessel responsible for wet dunnage which affected adversely the...