Leonard v. Prince Line, 49
| Decision Date | 18 November 1946 |
| Docket Number | No. 49,Docket 20308.,49 |
| Citation | 157 F.2d 987 |
| Parties | LEONARD v. PRINCE LINE, Limited, et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Kirlin, Campbell, Hickox & Keating, of New York City (Raymond Parmer and Vernon S. Jones, both of New York City, of counsel), for Prince Line, Limited, appellant.
Sylvia Miller, of New York City (Chester A. Hahn, of New York City, of counsel), for John Leonard, plaintiff-appellee.
Before AUGUSTUS N. HAND, CHASE, and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
The plaintiff brought this action against Prince Line, Ltd., for personal injuries suffered by him on September 7, 1943, when employed by Bay Ridge Operating Company as a longshoreman and working on Pier 86, North River, New York City. The pier belonged to the City, which had at one time issued a revocable permit to Bay Ridge Operating Company whereby the latter was granted the use and occupation of the pier and was responsible to the City for its repairs, upkeep and safety. Subsequently, Prince Line, Ltd. was put in possession of the pier under a a similar revocable permit, which was renewed some four months before the accident, by the Municipal Commissioner of Marine and Aviation at an annual rental of $165,000, whereby Prince Line, Ltd., covenanted that: "* * * it will, at its own sole cost and expense, at all times during the continuance of this license or permit, maintain the superstructure of said wharf property and the structures thereon, including decking, sheathing, backing logs, fender system, clusters or other fender piles, vertical sheathing and mooring posts or bitts, in good and sufficient repair and condition and well painted," and also that it "will not assign or sublet, nor in any way charge or encumber the premises hereinbefore described or any part thereof, without the consent in writing of the Commissioner of Marine and Aviation."
It was conceded on behalf of Prince Line, Ltd., at the trial that no consent had ever been obtained to assign or sublet the piers to Bay Ridge Operating Company but the latter, having been the prior permittee and occupant of the premises, was requested by Prince Line, Ltd., to continue to operate the pier in the same way it had been operated when Bay Ridge was itself the permittee. In accordance with this arrangement Bay Ridge inspected the pier, and made repairs to it and the structures therein, for which it charged Prince Line, Ltd., for labor and materials, plus a small profit. Bay Ridge superintended the pier, collected wharfage for vessels moored there, and paid all charges in connection with repairs and maintenance. It also paid the rental for the pier due from Prince Line, Ltd., and remitted to the latter the wharfage collected after taking credit for the rent it paid to the City, for the cost of the labor and materials it furnished and for the small profit chargeable therefor. Bay Ridge charged all vessels using the pier for wharfage, including those owned by the Prince Line. In making these charges, John Walker, the president of Bay Ridge, testified that he was acting for the Prince Line and that the earnings of Bay Ridge were mainly derived from stevedoring the vessels arriving at the pier. He testified that his company had a carpenter's shop, a machine shop and a gear shop on the pier in which it employed men to make and repair the stevedoring equipment belonging to it. He said that he had sole discretion as to what vessels should come to the berth and even decided when Prince Line's vessels could not come there. This, however, would have been so whether Bay Ridge had control on its own account or solely acted as agent for Prince Line, for it was doing the stevedoring for vessels coming to the pier and, in order to do the business efficiently or practically, had to have freedom in arranging the order in which ships would be loaded or discharged.
At the time the accident occurred the plaintiff and two other employees of Bay Ridge were told to move a chute (weighing about 900 pounds) that was lying on the dock at the end of the pier. To do this they used a block and fall which was attached to a heavy beam that ran between the flanges of two of the I beams in the roof of the pier and rested upon the flanges. When the plaintiff pulled on the line of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
F. & M. Schaefer Brewing Co. v. United States
...v. Wissahickon Tool Works, 2 Cir., 200 F.2d 936, the notation of a grant of summary judgment, as here; and see also Leonard v. Prince Line, 2 Cir., 157 F.2d 987, 989; Murphy v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 2 Cir., 158 F.2d 481, 485; Binder v. Commercial Travelers Mut. Acc. Ass'n of America, 2 Cir.......
-
Binder v. Commercial Travelers Mut. Acc. Ass'n, 65
...a superfluous "judgment" was entered later, on February 17, 1944, in more limited terms does not change this result. Leonard v. Prince Line, 2 Cir., 157 F.2d 987, 989.1 And the judge's order of February 9, after stating that the verdict was set aside and judgment was entered for the defenda......
-
United States v. Schaefer Brewing Co
...also appears, in result at least, to be in conflict with the Second Circuit's opinion in the instant case. 1. See Leonard v. Prince Line, Ltd., 2 Cir., 157 F.2d 987, 989; Murphy v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 2 Cir., 158 F.2d 481, 484 485; Binder v. Commercial Travelers Mut. Acc. Ass'n, 2 Cir., 1......
-
United States v. Wissahickon Tool Works
...nor would the date be changed by forms of judgment later submitted by counsel, even if these are signed by the judge. Leonard v. Prince Line, 2 Cir., 157 F.2d 987, 989; Murphy v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 2 Cir., 158 F.2d 481, 485; Binder v. Commercial Travelers Mut. Acc. Ass'n of America, 2 Ci......