Christos Vassos, Libelant-Appellant v. Societa Trans-Oceanica Canopus, S.A., Mar-Trade Corporation and the S.S. Canopus

Second Circuit

Christos Vassos, Libelant-Appellant v. Societa Trans-Oceanica Canopus, S.A., Mar-Trade Corporation and the S.S. Canopus

272 F.2d 182, 2 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 972, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3057

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedNovember 19, 1959

Docket39, Docket 24812

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 272 F.2d 182 (Christos Vassos, Libelant-Appellant v. Societa Trans-Oceanica Canopus, S.A., Mar-Trade Corporation and the S.S. Canopus) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Christos Vassos, Libelant-Appellant v. Societa Trans-Oceanica Canopus, S.A., Mar-Trade Corporation and the S.S. Canopus, 272 F.2d 182, 2 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 972, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3057 (2d Cir. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Libelant, an alien seaman, seeks redress for personal injuries allegedly sustained on May 15, 1949, while aboard the S.S. Canopus, a vessel of Panamanian registry. In a reasoned opinion, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 143 F.Supp. 945, Judge Bicks sustained exceptions to the libel because of a previous decision in 1954 by Judge Edelstein in a civil action between the parties as well as in the exercise of independent discretion to decline to accept jurisdiction in this suit between aliens.

Judge Edelstein’s dismissal of the civil action was based both upon the statute of limitations and upon a refusal to accept jurisdiction. No appeal was taken from it. Citing N.Y.Civil Practice Act, § 23, appellant tries here to reopen the question of jurisdiction and assert a new theory of liability. But the claim is now completely res judicata, on jurisdictional as well as substantive issues. Stoll v. Gottlieb, 305 U.S. 165, 170, 172, 59 S.Ct. 134, 83 L.Ed. 104; Angel *183 v. Bullington, 330 U.S. 183, 190, 67 S.Ct. 657, 91 L.Ed. 832; Koziol v. The Fylgia, 2 Cir., 230 F.2d 651, certiorari denied 352 U.S. 827, 77 S.Ct. 40, 1 L.Ed.2d 49. And any attempt to reopen a judgment in a civil action is completely controlled by F.R.Giv.P. 60(b), not by state statute.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Libelant, an alien seaman, seeks redress for personal injuries allegedly sustained on May 15, 1949, while aboard the S.S. Canopus, a vessel of Panamanian registry. In a reasoned opinion, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 143 F.Supp. 945, Judge Bicks sustained exceptions to the libel because of a previous decision in 1954 by Judge Edelstein in a civil action between the parties as well as in the exercise of independent discretion to decline to accept jurisdiction in this suit between aliens.

Judge Edelstein’s dismissal of the civil action was based both upon the statute of limitations and upon a refusal to accept jurisdiction. No appeal was taken from it. Citing N.Y.Civil Practice Act, § 23, appellant tries here to reopen the question of jurisdiction and assert a new theory of liability. But the claim is now completely res judicata, on jurisdictional as well as substantive issues. Stoll v. Gottlieb, 305 U.S. 165, 170, 172, 59 S.Ct. 134, 83 L.Ed. 104; Angel *183 v. Bullington, 330 U.S. 183, 190, 67 S.Ct. 657, 91 L.Ed. 832; Koziol v. The Fylgia, 2 Cir., 230 F.2d 651, certiorari denied 352 U.S. 827, 77 S.Ct. 40, 1 L.Ed.2d 49. And any attempt to reopen a judgment in a civil action is completely controlled by F.R.Giv.P. 60(b), not by state statute.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 F.2d 182, 2 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 972, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3057, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/christos-vassos-libelant-appellant-v-societa-trans-oceanica-canopus-ca2-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack