Shannon v. United States

235 F.2d 457
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided July 31, 1956·No. No. 354, Docket 23999·Published·Cited by 33 cases

Opinion

FRANK, Circuit Judge.

The trial judge found that the cables supplied by the United States were “kinky” when supplied to Smith, the stevedoring employer. As the oral testimony supports this finding, it is not “clearly erroneous.” However, the testimony perhaps justifies an inference of fact that, despite the kinks, the cable was “in good working order,” i. e., that stevedores regard the presence of kinks as a normal condition of a cable and consider it a part of the stevedore’s ordinary function to remove such kinks.1

But we do not rest our decision on that ground, since we think Smith liable over to the owner even if, because of the kinks, the cable was not in “good working order.” For Smith had expressly agreed with the owner to “rig and un-rig the ship’s gear” which Smith used. That agreement, we think, included, as a promise implied in fact, the following: If Smith knew of a defect in any such gear, Smith would either remove the defect or notify the owner. This express undertaking constituted an agreement to indemnify the owner for any loss resulting from a breach by Smith. The express agreement distinguishes this case from American Mutual Liability Ins. Co. v. Matthews, 2 Cir., 182 F.2d 322, 324-325. See Ryan Stevedoring Co. v. Pan-Atlantic S.S. Corp., 350 U.S. 124, 76 S.Ct. 232.

The government is therefore entitled to recover from Smith the amount it paid him, together with its reasonable attorneys’ fees and reimbursements in. preparing to defend against Shannon’s, claim.

Reversed.

Footnotes

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

Shannon v. United States, 235 F.2d 457 (2d Cir. 1956).

235 F.2d 457 (Shannon v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. SS WABASH
331 F. Supp. 145 (S.D. New York, 1971)
United States Lines Co. v. Jarka Corp. of New England
265 F. Supp. 811 (D. Massachusetts, 1967)
Torres v. Compañia Trasatlantica Española, S.A.
261 F. Supp. 105 (D. Puerto Rico, 1966)
Bailey v. United States
260 F. Supp. 48 (E.D. Virginia, 1966)
Smith v. Brown & Root Marine Operators, Inc.
243 F. Supp. 130 (W.D. Louisiana, 1965)
Shenker v. United States
322 F.2d 622 (Second Circuit, 1963)
Damanti v. A/S Inger
314 F.2d 395 (Second Circuit, 1963)
California Tanker Co. v. Todd Shipyards Corp.
206 F. Supp. 872 (S.D. New York, 1962)
Rederi A/b Dalen v. Walter C. Maher, Impleaded
303 F.2d 565 (Fourth Circuit, 1962)
Calderone v. NAVIERA VACUBA S/A
204 F. Supp. 783 (S.D. New York, 1962)
Caputo v. United States Lines Co.
202 F. Supp. 600 (E.D. New York, 1962)
Ferrigno v. Ocean Transport, Ltd.
201 F. Supp. 173 (S.D. New York, 1961)
Drago v. A/S Inger
194 F. Supp. 398 (E.D. New York, 1961)
United States Lines Company v. EJ Lavino & Company
198 F. Supp. 483 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1961)