Soderberg v. Atlantic Lighterage Corporation, 270.

Decision Date02 May 1927
Docket NumberNo. 270.,270.
Citation19 F.2d 286
PartiesSODERBERG v. ATLANTIC LIGHTERAGE CORPORATION et al.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

Lord, Day & Lord, of New York City (George De Forest Lord, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.

Macklin, Brown, Lenahan & Speer, of New York City (Pierre Brown and James M. Gorman, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellee Atlantic Lighterage Corporation.

Eugene Underwood, of New York City, for appellee Soderberg.

Before MANTON, L. HAND, and SWAN, Circuit Judges.

L. HAND, Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).

The first point raised is that under our decision in The Southern Cross, 10 F.(2d) 699, the Cunard Steamship Company could not be impleaded because it was not jointly liable with the charterer. This rests upon a misapprehension of the decision in that case, perhaps excusable because of some of the language used. The question there mooted was of the liability of certain ships for the wharfage of lighters, berthed at Brooklyn wharves. These craft had been sued in rem, and impleaded the ships, which had either discharged their cargoes into the lighters, or were to lift the loads which they brought alongside. We considered the merits, which were not before us if the ships were not properly impleaded, and thought the reasoning by which their liability was asserted a "complete non sequitur," and unworthy of serious consideration. It is true that the opinion then went on to say that a passage in our opinion in Aktieselskabet Fido v. Lloyd Braziliero, 283 F. 62, 72, had definitively committed the court to the proposition on which the appellant relies, but it was unnecessary so to decide. The case cited did not itself decide that a party impleaded under the fifty-sixth rule must be jointly liable with the respondent or claimant. It turned upon the fact that the controversy there sought to be introduced into the original suit was not within the jurisdiction of the admiralty. We thought, and still think, that a procedural rule cannot extend the constitutional powers of federal courts, and that the controversy added must at least fall within some part of the substantive jurisdiction granted by the Constitution. It is not necessary here to determine whether the District Court could introduce such a controversy, though it was not of admiralty jurisdiction, if it was within some one of its other grants of jurisdiction. All we need say is that if it be within the jurisdiction of the admiralty, it need not be upon a joint liability of the respondent or claimant and the party impleaded. Indeed, a contrary ruling would be in the very teeth of the rule itself, which allows the claimant or respondent to implead a vessel or person "who may be partly or wholly liable either to the libelant or to such claimant or respondent by way of remedy over, contribution or otherwise, growing out of the same matter." This at least covers any such liability which is cognizable in the admiralty. We hold, therefore, that the Cunard Steamship Company was properly impleaded in the case at bar.

Coming then to the merits, the only question...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • United States v. Bink
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Oregon
    • 30 september 1947
    ...must fall within some part of the substantive jurisdiction granted by the Constitution to the court involved. Soderberg v. Atlantic Lighterage Corp., 2 Cir., 19 F.2d 286. 42 Washington-Southern Nav. Co. v. Baltimore & Philadelphia Steamboat Co., 263 U.S. 629, 632, 635, 44 S.Ct. 220, 221, 68......
  • David Crystal, Inc. v. Cunard Steam-Ship Company
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 10 oktober 1963
    ...69 L.Ed. 804 (1925); Rudy-Patrick Seed Co. v. Kokusai Kisen Kabushiki Kaisha, 1 F.Supp. 266 (S.D.N.Y.1932). Cf. Soderberg v. Atlantic Lighterage Corp., 19 F.2d 286, 287 (2 Cir.), cert. denied 275 U.S. 542, 48 S.Ct. 37, 72 L.Ed. 416 (1927). The rule is best expressed in 3 Moore, Federal Prac......
  • McFarland v. Dixie Machinery & Equipment Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 12 juni 1941
    ...114 F. 100, 57 L. R. A. 712; Standard Oil Co. v. Parkinson, 152 F. 681; Harrell v. Atlas Portland Cement Co., 250 F. 83; Soderberg v. Atlantic, etc., Corp., 19 F.2d 286; Labbee v. Travenot S. S. Co., 37 F.2d Collier, etc., Corp. v. Hartfeil, 72 F.2d 625; Childers v. Commissioner of Internal......
  • Leather's Best, Inc. v. SS Mormaclynx
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 29 oktober 1971
    ...737, 43 S.Ct. 97, 67 L.Ed. 489 (1922); Rudy-Patrick Seed Co. v. Kokusai, 1 F.Supp. 266 (S.D.N.Y. 1932). But cf. Soderberg v. Atlantic Lighterage Corp., 19 F.2d 286, 287 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 275 U.S. 542, 48 S.Ct. 37, 72 L.Ed. 416 (1927). With merger, a sub-section (c) was added to Rule 1......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT