Cornell Steamboat Co. v. United States

S.D. New York

Cornell Steamboat Co. v. United States

146 F. Supp. 718, 1956 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2495

DecidedMarch 21, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 146 F. Supp. 718 (Cornell Steamboat Co. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cornell Steamboat Co. v. United States, 146 F. Supp. 718, 1956 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2495 (S.D.N.Y. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

DIMOCK, District Judge.

The record in these cases contains inconsistent directions made by me as to the payment of costs by the Government in the admiralty suit. The Government proposed a conclusion of law that the Cornell Steamboat Company was entitled to a decree for half damages and half costs. The Cornell Steamboat Company proposed a conclusion of law that it was entitled to a decree for half damages and costs. Without noticing the difference I made a notation with respect to each request that I had made the conclusion desired.

I have resolved the conflict by entering a decree for full costs in the admiralty suit although I am persuaded that costs are in the discretion of the court in such a suit as this under the Public Vessels Act, 46 U.S.C. § 781 et seq.

A compelling reason in this case for awarding full costs in the admiralty suit is the fact that any other course would result in a decree for a different amount in the admiralty suit from the judgment in the suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Unlike costs under the Public Vessels Act as interpreted by me, costs under the Federal Tort Claims Act are mandatory, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(c). 6 Moore, Federal Practice, par. 54.75, p. 1342. Part of the plan worked out for concurrent treatment of the two cases was that the awards should be interchangeable.

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

DIMOCK, District Judge.

The record in these cases contains inconsistent directions made by me as to the payment of costs by the Government in the admiralty suit. The Government proposed a conclusion of law that the Cornell Steamboat Company was entitled to a decree for half damages and half costs. The Cornell Steamboat Company proposed a conclusion of law that it was entitled to a decree for half damages and costs. Without noticing the difference I made a notation with respect to each request that I had made the conclusion desired.

I have resolved the conflict by entering a decree for full costs in the admiralty suit although I am persuaded that costs are in the discretion of the court in such a suit as this under the Public Vessels Act, 46 U.S.C. § 781 et seq.

A compelling reason in this case for awarding full costs in the admiralty suit is the fact that any other course would result in a decree for a different amount in the admiralty suit from the judgment in the suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Unlike costs under the Public Vessels Act as interpreted by me, costs under the Federal Tort Claims Act are mandatory, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(c). 6 Moore, Federal Practice, par. 54.75, p. 1342. Part of the plan worked out for concurrent treatment of the two cases was that the awards should be interchangeable.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 F. Supp. 718, 1956 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2495, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cornell-steamboat-co-v-united-states-nysd-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack