The Russell No. 3

Second Circuit

The Russell No. 3

99 F.2d 826, 1938 U.S. App. LEXIS 4659, 1939 A.M.C. 40

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedNovember 18, 1938

DocketNo. 218

StatusPublished

This text of 99 F.2d 826 (The Russell No. 3) 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

The Russell No. 3, 99 F.2d 826, 1938 U.S. App. LEXIS 4659, 1939 A.M.C. 40 (2d Cir. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This suit was begun in December 12, L925: we disposed of it finally on July 18, 1938, after two appeals, deciding among other things that the claimant should bear so much of the drydocking charges as were attributable to the repair both of the propeller and of the bushing and nut. The only question before us was whether the libellant or the claimant should bear the whole of these. On August 2, 1938, the claimant filed a petition for rehearing asking that the charges should be shared equally, citing in support Marine Insurance Co. Ld. v. The China Trans-Pacific S. S. Co., Ld., 11 App.Cas. 573 (H.L.), The Haversham Grange, L.R. (1905) Prob.Div. 307 (C.A.), and the Bratsberg, D.C., 127 F. 1005. The claimant had theretofore not even intimated that the charges should be divided; its position throughout had been that it should pay no part of them. We will not consider a new point raised for the first time after such extraordinary delays, except to say that, since the matter has never been presented to us, we shall feel free in the future to treat it as res integra.

Petition for rehearing denied.

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

PER CURIAM.

This suit was begun in December 12, L925: we disposed of it finally on July 18, 1938, after two appeals, deciding among other things that the claimant should bear so much of the drydocking charges as were attributable to the repair both of the propeller and of the bushing and nut. The only question before us was whether the libellant or the claimant should bear the whole of these. On August 2, 1938, the claimant filed a petition for rehearing asking that the charges should be shared equally, citing in support Marine Insurance Co. Ld. v. The China Trans-Pacific S. S. Co., Ld., 11 App.Cas. 573 (H.L.), The Haversham Grange, L.R. (1905) Prob.Div. 307 (C.A.), and the Bratsberg, D.C., 127 F. 1005. The claimant had theretofore not even intimated that the charges should be divided; its position throughout had been that it should pay no part of them. We will not consider a new point raised for the first time after such extraordinary delays, except to say that, since the matter has never been presented to us, we shall feel free in the future to treat it as res integra.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 F.2d 826, 1938 U.S. App. LEXIS 4659, 1939 A.M.C. 40, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-russell-no-3-ca2-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack