National Federation of Coffee Growers v. Isbrandtsen Co.

New York Supreme Court

National Federation of Coffee Growers v. Isbrandtsen Co.

17 Misc. 2d 113, 185 N.Y.S.2d 392, 1957 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3442

DecidedFebruary 25, 1957

StatusPublished

This text of 17 Misc. 2d 113 (National Federation of Coffee Growers v. Isbrandtsen Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

National Federation of Coffee Growers v. Isbrandtsen Co., 17 Misc. 2d 113, 185 N.Y.S.2d 392, 1957 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3442 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

Edgar J. Nathan, Jr., J.

Upon the foregoing papers this motion by defendant for summary judgment is granted. The Statute of Limitations in the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (§ 3, subd. [6], U. S. Code, tit. 46, § 1303, subd. [6]) as made applicable by the bills of lading and the similar limitations separately included in the bills of lading herein are available not only to the carrier but to its agent, the defendant. (See United States v. South Star, 210 F. 2d 44 [C. C. A. 2d]; A. M. Collins & Co. v. Panama R. R. Co., 197 F. 2d 893 [C. A. A. 5th], cert, denied 344 U. S. 875.) Plaintiff’s affidavit in opposition raises no issue of fact. Without controverting defendant’s showing that it was the agent of the carrier, plaintiff asserts that ‘1 Regardless of the agreements that may exist between the carrier and the defendant, the plaintiff has a right to sue the defendant as an independent contractor”. This is a theory that was rejected by a majority of the court in the Collins case (supra).

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

Edgar J. Nathan, Jr., J.

Upon the foregoing papers this motion by defendant for summary judgment is granted. The Statute of Limitations in the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (§ 3, subd. [6], U. S. Code, tit. 46, § 1303, subd. [6]) as made applicable by the bills of lading and the similar limitations separately included in the bills of lading herein are available not only to the carrier but to its agent, the defendant. (See United States v. South Star, 210 F. 2d 44 [C. C. A. 2d]; A. M. Collins & Co. v. Panama R. R. Co., 197 F. 2d 893 [C. A. A. 5th], cert, denied 344 U. S. 875.) Plaintiff’s affidavit in opposition raises no issue of fact. Without controverting defendant’s showing that it was the agent of the carrier, plaintiff asserts that ‘1 Regardless of the agreements that may exist between the carrier and the defendant, the plaintiff has a right to sue the defendant as an independent contractor”. This is a theory that was rejected by a majority of the court in the Collins case (supra).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 Misc. 2d 113, 185 N.Y.S.2d 392, 1957 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3442, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-federation-of-coffee-growers-v-isbrandtsen-co-nysupct-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack