Warren W. Tarkington v. United States Lines Company

Second Circuit

Warren W. Tarkington v. United States Lines Company

222 F.2d 358, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 4805

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMay 11, 1955

Docket23528_1

StatusPublished

Cited by47 cases

This text of 222 F.2d 358 (Warren W. Tarkington v. United States Lines Company) 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

Warren W. Tarkington v. United States Lines Company, 222 F.2d 358, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 4805 (2d Cir. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

FRANK, Circuit Judge.

1. Judge Edelstein correctly interpreted the rule of Mollica v. Compania Sud-Americana DeVapores, 2 Cir., 202 F.2d 25, and other cases, and properly directed a verdict for the defendant under the law as then interpreted in this Circuit.

2. An appeal of the original judgment is barred by the fact that plaintiff did not file his notice of appeal until May 28, 1954, sixty-four days after entry of the original judgment. But the appeal is timely as to the question raised by the motion to reopen the judgment. See, e. g., United States v. Wis-sahickon Tool Works, 2 Cir., 200 F.2d 936.

3. On April 5, 1954, the Supreme Court decided Alaska S. S. Co. v. Petterson, 347 U.S. 396, 74 S.Ct. 601, 98 L.Ed. 798, affirming, on the opinion below, the decision of the Ninth Circuit *360 in Petterson v. Alaska S. S. Co., 205 F.2d 478, 479. The opinion of the Ninth Circuit had expressly rejected the “ ‘relinquishment of control’ ” doctrine of the Second Circuit expressed in Mollica v. Compania Sud-Americana DeVapores, 2 Cir., 202 F.2d 25, and other cases. Since the doctrine of the Petterson case conflicts with the cases on which the trial judge relied in directing a verdict, the trial judge should have treated plaintiff’s motion as a motion under Fed.Rules Civ. Proc. rule 60(b), 28 U.S.C.A., to correct a mistake of the court. Thus viewed, plaintiff’s appeal is timely, for the motion was filed ten days after the decision of the Supreme Court in Petterson, and the notice of appeal filed within thirty days after the denial of that motion.

The judgment is reversed, and the action remanded for a new trial on the issue of unseaworthiness.

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

FRANK, Circuit Judge.

1. Judge Edelstein correctly interpreted the rule of Mollica v. Compania Sud-Americana DeVapores, 2 Cir., 202 F.2d 25, and other cases, and properly directed a verdict for the defendant under the law as then interpreted in this Circuit.

2. An appeal of the original judgment is barred by the fact that plaintiff did not file his notice of appeal until May 28, 1954, sixty-four days after entry of the original judgment. But the appeal is timely as to the question raised by the motion to reopen the judgment. See, e. g., United States v. Wis-sahickon Tool Works, 2 Cir., 200 F.2d 936.

3. On April 5, 1954, the Supreme Court decided Alaska S. S. Co. v. Petterson, 347 U.S. 396, 74 S.Ct. 601, 98 L.Ed. 798, affirming, on the opinion below, the decision of the Ninth Circuit *360 in Petterson v. Alaska S. S. Co., 205 F.2d 478, 479. The opinion of the Ninth Circuit had expressly rejected the “ ‘relinquishment of control’ ” doctrine of the Second Circuit expressed in Mollica v. Compania Sud-Americana DeVapores, 2 Cir., 202 F.2d 25, and other cases. Since the doctrine of the Petterson case conflicts with the cases on which the trial judge relied in directing a verdict, the trial judge should have treated plaintiff’s motion as a motion under Fed.Rules Civ. Proc. rule 60(b), 28 U.S.C.A., to correct a mistake of the court. Thus viewed, plaintiff’s appeal is timely, for the motion was filed ten days after the decision of the Supreme Court in Petterson, and the notice of appeal filed within thirty days after the denial of that motion.

The judgment is reversed, and the action remanded for a new trial on the issue of unseaworthiness.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 F.2d 358, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 4805, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/warren-w-tarkington-v-united-states-lines-company-ca2-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack