John E. Jumonville v. Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corporation

Fifth Circuit

John E. Jumonville v. Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corporation

273 F.2d 608, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 2783

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 30, 1959

Docket17782

StatusPublished

This text of 273 F.2d 608 (John E. Jumonville v. Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

John E. Jumonville v. Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corporation, 273 F.2d 608, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 2783 (5th Cir. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from the order of the District Court entered on April 23, 1959, described in the Notice of Appeal as

“1. Granting the motion of the li-belant for the sale of the dredge J.

E. JUMONVILLE;

“2. Denying the exception of respondent John E. Jumonville to the libel filed herein;

“3. Denying the exception of respondent John E. Jumonville to the Admiralty Court’s jurisdiction.”

Since said order, but without any sale of the vessel, the appellant has paid to the appellee its admitted indebtedness, for which the vessel was ordered sold. Thereby the order insofar as it is described in the Notice of Appeal has become moot. The order did also grant the exception of the libelant-appellee to the cross libel filed by the appellant, in which it sought to recover damages sustained because of the seizure of the vessel. Upon the assumption that it has jurisdiction, this Court is of the opinion that such part of the order should be affirmed. In open Court upon oral argument, the appellee consented that the grant of exception to the cross libel should be modified so as to be without prejudice to any action for damages which may hereafter be brought by the appellant. It is so ordered.

Modified and affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from the order of the District Court entered on April 23, 1959, described in the Notice of Appeal as

“1. Granting the motion of the li-belant for the sale of the dredge J.

E. JUMONVILLE;

“2. Denying the exception of respondent John E. Jumonville to the libel filed herein;

“3. Denying the exception of respondent John E. Jumonville to the Admiralty Court’s jurisdiction.”

Since said order, but without any sale of the vessel, the appellant has paid to the appellee its admitted indebtedness, for which the vessel was ordered sold. Thereby the order insofar as it is described in the Notice of Appeal has become moot. The order did also grant the exception of the libelant-appellee to the cross libel filed by the appellant, in which it sought to recover damages sustained because of the seizure of the vessel. Upon the assumption that it has jurisdiction, this Court is of the opinion that such part of the order should be affirmed. In open Court upon oral argument, the appellee consented that the grant of exception to the cross libel should be modified so as to be without prejudice to any action for damages which may hereafter be brought by the appellant. It is so ordered.

Modified and affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 F.2d 608, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 2783, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-e-jumonville-v-baldwin-lima-hamilton-corporation-ca5-1959.