Heier v. Panama Transport Co.

Second Circuit

Heier v. Panama Transport Co.

172 F.2d 355, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 2712

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJanuary 31, 1949

DocketNo. 140, Docket 21192

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 172 F.2d 355 (Heier v. Panama Transport Co.) 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

Heier v. Panama Transport Co., 172 F.2d 355, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 2712 (2d Cir. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

FRANK, Circuit Judge.

Ordinarily the trial judge has discretion to permit the filing of later claims in an admiralty proceeding, at least as long as the fund has not been entirely distributed or a final decree entered. Meyer v. New England Fish Co., 9 Cir., 136 F.2d 315; Petition of Chester A. Poling, Inc., D.C.E.D.N.Y., 51 F.Supp. 375.

Since the appellants are Norwegian seamen, uninformed about oür laws and procedures, who apparently were under the mistaken impression that their claims had been filed, leave to file the claims should have been granted, subject to the condition, to which their attorney agreed, that it [356]*356would in no way prejudice any claimant who filed his claim within the prescribed time.

Reversed.

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

FRANK, Circuit Judge.

Ordinarily the trial judge has discretion to permit the filing of later claims in an admiralty proceeding, at least as long as the fund has not been entirely distributed or a final decree entered. Meyer v. New England Fish Co., 9 Cir., 136 F.2d 315; Petition of Chester A. Poling, Inc., D.C.E.D.N.Y., 51 F.Supp. 375.

Since the appellants are Norwegian seamen, uninformed about oür laws and procedures, who apparently were under the mistaken impression that their claims had been filed, leave to file the claims should have been granted, subject to the condition, to which their attorney agreed, that it [356]*356would in no way prejudice any claimant who filed his claim within the prescribed time.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 F.2d 355, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 2712, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heier-v-panama-transport-co-ca2-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack