THE JAMES McWILLIAMS
| Decision Date | 18 May 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 378.,378. |
| Citation | 49 F.2d 1026 |
| Parties | THE JAMES McWILLIAMS. NEW JERSEY SHIPBUILDING & DREDGING CO. (MERCHANTS MARINE INS. CO., Limited, et al., Interveners) v. JAMES McWILLIAMS BLUE LINE, Inc. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Leo J. Curren, of New York City, for appellant.
Alexander, Ash & Jones, of New York City (Edward Ash, of New York City, of counsel), for libelant-appellee.
Barry, Wainwright, Thacher & Symmers, of New York City (Earle Farwell and Joseph M. Brush, both of New York City, of counsel), for interveners-appellees.
Before MANTON, L. HAND, and CHASE, Circuit Judges.
This appeal relates wholly to costs in the District Court. The libelant had a decree there which was, on appeal, reversed with half costs to the appellant. See The James McWilliams (C. C. A.) 42 F.(2d) 130. The original decree had contained an item allowed for detention which was held to have been improperly proved. An opportunity was provided for the libelant to offer proof in the District Court in support of its detention claim in accordance with the principles held to be applicable to such proof. It did not see fit to avail itself of this opportunity, but delayed until that court entered an order dismissing its claim unless it proceeded to prove it within a time fixed. As the libelant did not comply with the terms of this order and offered no proof within the time limited, its claim was finally dismissed. Thereafter such proceedings were had that a final decree was entered for the libelant awarding to it only the damages to which it had been held to have been entitled on the evidence originally introduced. This decree, however, provided that it recover the same costs that were allowed to it in the original District Court decree which had contained as a substantial part of the award the item for detention that eventually was disallowed in toto. Thus it appears that, although the libelant was defeated in the District Court in respect to a substantial part of its claim, it has nevertheless been there awarded in full the costs occasioned by its first and only unsuccessful attempt to prove detention damages.
The matter of the allowance of costs in actions in admiralty rests in the sound discretion of the court, and furthermore the District Court is not deprived of its discretionary power, on remand in the absence of anything in the mandate to the contrary. The Ada (C. C. A.) 255 F. 50; Romeike v. Romeike et al. (C. C. A.) 251 F. 273....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Farmer v. Arabian American Oil Company
...of a judgment solely for costs. See Newton v. Consolidated Gas Co., 265 U.S. 78, 44 S.Ct. 481, 68 L.Ed. 909 (1924); The James McWilliams, 49 F.2d 1026 (2 Cir. 1931); Walker v. Lee, 71 F.2d 622 (9 Cir. 1934). However, Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure now governs the grantin......
-
THE SCL NO. 9
...costs, which in an action in admiralty rests in the sound discretion of the court. The Lily, 9 Cir., 69 F.2d 898, 900; The James McWilliams, 2 Cir., 49 F.2d 1026, 1027; The Verona, D.C., 40 F.2d 742, 743. Admittedly, General Chemical Company, the owner of the cargo, suffered a loss without ......
-
Intertype Corporation v. Clark-Congress Corporation
... ... 1527: "We have recently held in a suit in the admiralty (New Jersey Shipbuilding & Dredging Co. v. James McWilliams Blue Line, 2 Cir., 49 F.2d 1026), that there can be no appeal whose only purpose is to challenge the propriety of an award of costs at ... ...
-
Lambros Seaplane Base v. M/S BATORY
...after the mandate is issued by the appellate court. The Pocahontas, 2 Cir. 1940, 111 F.2d 451; New Jersey Shipbuilding & Dredging Co. v. James McWilliams Blue Line, Inc., 2 Cir.1931, 49 F.2d 1026; The Ada, 2 Cir.1918, 255 F. 50; Romeike v. Romeike, 2 Cir.1918, 251 F. 273, 275; cf. United St......