United States v. Isthmian S. S. Co.

Second Circuit

United States v. Isthmian S. S. Co.

187 F.2d 662, 1951 A.M.C. 646

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMarch 21, 1951

Docket662

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 187 F.2d 662 (United States v. Isthmian S. S. Co.) 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

United States v. Isthmian S. S. Co., 187 F.2d 662, 1951 A.M.C. 646 (2d Cir. 1951).

Pincite

Opinions

AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judge.

The question here is whether an appeal taken seventy-one days after judgment was taken in time. The action was originally brought in admiralty for damages to a United States Navy magnetic channel range when the Isthmian Steamship Company vessel “Steel Ranger” dropped her anchor in the area where the range was located. Isthmian moved to dismiss the amended libel in admiralty for lack of jurisdiction and, by an order dated April 17, 1945, the amended libel was dismissed as against the “Steel Ranger” and in so far as it alleged a claim in personam against the Isthmian-Steamship Company the case was transferred to the civil side of the District Court for a trial by a jury in accordance with the principles governing civil actions. An-appeal from that .order was thereafter taken to this court but was dismissed as-premature on the ground that the order appealed from was not final. Thereafter the-case was tried in the District Court and resulted in a verdict for Isthmian Steamship Company, from which an appeal was taken. The appeal was taken too late if" the action was properly transferred to the civil side, but not taken too late if the suit was to be regarded as one in admiralty. Our decision in United States v. The John R. Williams, 2 Cir., 144 F.2d 451, which the Supreme Court refused to review bycertiorari, indicates that admiralty was. without jurisdiction and that the transfer-to the civil side was in all respects proper. But in any event the District Court ordered' the transfer and, whether or not it made a-, mistake, had jurisdiction to make the order. Accordingly, the action became a c-ivil action, and was subject to the law relating-to appeals in such actions. That law when applied left the plaintiff in default in talc— [663]*663mg its appeal because it had only sixty ■days within which to appeal, and not ninety days as it would have had were the appeal one from a decree in admiralty. Therefore, the motion to dismiss the appeal was properly granted.

PER CURIAM.

Motion to dismiss appeal. Motion granted, appeal dismissed in open court for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

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

AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judge.

The question here is whether an appeal taken seventy-one days after judgment was taken in time. The action was originally brought in admiralty for damages to a United States Navy magnetic channel range when the Isthmian Steamship Company vessel “Steel Ranger” dropped her anchor in the area where the range was located. Isthmian moved to dismiss the amended libel in admiralty for lack of jurisdiction and, by an order dated April 17, 1945, the amended libel was dismissed as against the “Steel Ranger” and in so far as it alleged a claim in personam against the Isthmian-Steamship Company the case was transferred to the civil side of the District Court for a trial by a jury in accordance with the principles governing civil actions. An-appeal from that .order was thereafter taken to this court but was dismissed as-premature on the ground that the order appealed from was not final. Thereafter the-case was tried in the District Court and resulted in a verdict for Isthmian Steamship Company, from which an appeal was taken. The appeal was taken too late if" the action was properly transferred to the civil side, but not taken too late if the suit was to be regarded as one in admiralty. Our decision in United States v. The John R. Williams, 2 Cir., 144 F.2d 451, which the Supreme Court refused to review bycertiorari, indicates that admiralty was. without jurisdiction and that the transfer-to the civil side was in all respects proper. But in any event the District Court ordered' the transfer and, whether or not it made a-, mistake, had jurisdiction to make the order. Accordingly, the action became a c-ivil action, and was subject to the law relating-to appeals in such actions. That law when applied left the plaintiff in default in talc— [663]*663mg its appeal because it had only sixty ■days within which to appeal, and not ninety days as it would have had were the appeal one from a decree in admiralty. Therefore, the motion to dismiss the appeal was properly granted.

PER CURIAM.

Motion to dismiss appeal. Motion granted, appeal dismissed in open court for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 F.2d 662, 1951 A.M.C. 646, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-isthmian-s-s-co-ca2-1951.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack