Theodorakis v. Xilas the Alfios

Fourth Circuit

Theodorakis v. Xilas the Alfios

200 F.2d 107, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 2243, 1952 A.M.C. 2038

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedNovember 15, 1952

Docket6493_1

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 200 F.2d 107 (Theodorakis v. Xilas the Alfios) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Theodorakis v. Xilas the Alfios, 200 F.2d 107, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 2243, 1952 A.M.C. 2038 (4th Cir. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal in a seaman’s wage case. The case was instituted by the filing of a libel in May 1949. In May 1950 an interlocutory decree was entered in favor of libelant granting him a recovery in the sum of $250 on facts developed by answers to interrogatories which he had propounded. The case came on for hearing on January 17, 1952, when libelant asked to be allowed to take a nonsuit without prejudice. The District Judge granted this permission on condition that libelant within thirty days pay the statutory costs which had been incurred in the case and upon the further condition that if such ' costs were not paid the case would then be dismissed with prejudice. Upon the failure of libelant to pay the costs in accordance with the condition, an order was duly entered dismissing the case with prejudice. The appeal challenges the power of the cciurt to impose the payment of costs as a condition of the right to take a nonsuit without prejudice. We think that this was a matter resting in the sound discretion of *108 the District Judge and that the discretion was properly exercised. There would be no question about the correctness of the questioned action if the rules of civil procedure were applicable in -admiralty. See Fed.Rules -Civ.Proc. rule 41(a)(2), 28 U.S. C.A. • We think it equally clear that the action was proper under the practice in admiralty. The Confiscation .Cases, 7 Wall 454, 19 L.Ed. 196.. Section 1916 of Title 28 of the Code permits a seaman to prosecute suits for wages without prepayment of costs. There is nothing in that section, however, which permits him as a matter of right to discontinue without prejudice a case which he has instituted and in which costs have been incurred.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal in a seaman’s wage case. The case was instituted by the filing of a libel in May 1949. In May 1950 an interlocutory decree was entered in favor of libelant granting him a recovery in the sum of $250 on facts developed by answers to interrogatories which he had propounded. The case came on for hearing on January 17, 1952, when libelant asked to be allowed to take a nonsuit without prejudice. The District Judge granted this permission on condition that libelant within thirty days pay the statutory costs which had been incurred in the case and upon the further condition that if such ' costs were not paid the case would then be dismissed with prejudice. Upon the failure of libelant to pay the costs in accordance with the condition, an order was duly entered dismissing the case with prejudice. The appeal challenges the power of the cciurt to impose the payment of costs as a condition of the right to take a nonsuit without prejudice. We think that this was a matter resting in the sound discretion of *108 the District Judge and that the discretion was properly exercised. There would be no question about the correctness of the questioned action if the rules of civil procedure were applicable in -admiralty. See Fed.Rules -Civ.Proc. rule 41(a)(2), 28 U.S. C.A. • We think it equally clear that the action was proper under the practice in admiralty. The Confiscation .Cases, 7 Wall 454, 19 L.Ed. 196.. Section 1916 of Title 28 of the Code permits a seaman to prosecute suits for wages without prepayment of costs. There is nothing in that section, however, which permits him as a matter of right to discontinue without prejudice a case which he has instituted and in which costs have been incurred.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 F.2d 107, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 2243, 1952 A.M.C. 2038, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/theodorakis-v-xilas-the-alfios-ca4-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack