TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Isthmian Steamship Company, Libelant- v. United States of America, States Marine Corporation, Libelant- v. United States

ISTHMIAN STEAMSHIP COMPANY, Libelant-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee; STATES MARINE CORPORATION, Libelant-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee

Isthmian S.S. Co., Libelant- v. United States of Am., States Marine Corp., Libelant- v. United States, 302 F.2d 69 (2d Cir. 1962)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
April 30, 1962
Docket
Nos. 265, Docket 27045
Judges
Medina, Smith, Hays
Citations
302 F.2d 691962 U.S. App. LEXIS 5235

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

Two ocean carriers appeal from dismissal by the District Court for the Southern District of New York, Sylvester J. Ryan, Chief Judge, of admiralty actions on claims against the United States for ocean freight and pier demurrage. We hold that the claims were properly held time-barred and affirm the judgment.

Timely libels were filed on certain freight and demurrage claims, on which recovery was eventually had. While the actions were pending, amended libels were filed adding claims on deliveries made and demurrage earned more than two years prior to the amendments. These claims were dismissed as untimely. Because the Government, after each of these claims had accrued, made entries on its books and notified libelants of offsets of cargo damage and shortage claims incurred on other voyages, a practice later held invalid in United States v. Isthmian Steamship Co., 359 U.S. 314 , 79 S.Ct. 857 , 3 L.Ed.2d 845 (1959) libel-ants contend that these claims are not time-barred. We disagree. The amended libels cannot relate back to the dates of the original libels, since the claims are based on completely distinct freight and demurrage charges arising out of different and independent shipments on other vessels or voyages. The two year period of limitations under the Suits in Admiralty Act is a jurisdictional limitation and cannot be waived. American Foreign SS Co. v. United States, 291 F.2d 598, 603 (2 Cir. 1961), cert. denied 368 U.S. 895 , 82 S.Ct. 171 , 7 L.Ed.2d 92 , States Marine Corp. v. United States, 283 F.2d 776 (2 Cir. 1960), Sgambati v. United States, 172 F.2d 297 (2 Cir. 1949), Osbourne v. *71 United States, 164 F.2d 767 (2 Cir. 1947). Moreover, an officer of the Government cannot waive its rights without express authority, here absent. See Huntington Steel Corp. v. United States, 153 F.Supp. 920, 923 (S.D.N.Y.1957). In any case, there is no evidence of any intent on the part of the Comptroller-General to revive the barred claims.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 12 cases

View all citing references →
1964: 21965: 11966: 11967: 11968: 11972: 11975: 21980: 11981: 11987: 119642026peak 1964 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Northern Metal Co. v. United States350 F.2d 833 (3d Cir. 1965)
  2. John C. Szyka v. United States Secretary of Defense525 F.2d 62 (2d Cir. 1975)
  3. Alaska Barge and Transport, Inc. v. The United States373 F.2d 967 (Ct. Cl. 1967)
  4. Crown Coat Front Co., Inc. v. United States363 F.2d 407 (2d Cir. 1966)
  5. Hammond v. United States388 F. Supp. 928 (E.D.N.Y. 1975)
  6. James E. McCormick and Carol Ann McCormick Etc. v. United States645 F.2d 299 (5th Cir. 1981)

Most recent

  1. Epshteyn v. United States657 F. Supp. 255 (S.D.N.Y. 1987)
  2. James E. McCormick and Carol Ann McCormick Etc. v. United States645 F.2d 299 (5th Cir. 1981)
  3. Marger v. Bell510 F. Supp. 9 (D. Me. 1980)
  4. John C. Szyka v. United States Secretary of Defense525 F.2d 62 (2d Cir. 1975)
  5. Hammond v. United States388 F. Supp. 928 (E.D.N.Y. 1975)
  6. Hellenic Lines Limited v. United States345 F. Supp. 1385 (S.D.N.Y. 1972)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 6

DepthCaseCited by
United States v. Isthmian S.S. Co., 359 U.S. 314 (1959) 48
Osbourne v. United States, 164 F.2d 767 (2d Cir. 1947) 113
Sgambati v. United States, 172 F.2d 297 (2d Cir. 1949) 33
States Marine Corp. of Del., Libelant- v. United States, 283 F.2d 776 (2d Cir. 1960) 24
Huntington Steel Corp. v. United States, 153 F. Supp. 920 (S.D.N.Y. 1957) 7
Am.-Foreign S.S. Corp., Libelant- v. United States of Am., Stockard S.S. Corp., Libelant- v. United States of Am., A. H. Bull S.S. Co., Bull-Insular Line, Inc., Baltimore Insular Line, Inc., Libelants- v, 291 F.2d 598 (2d Cir. 1961) 1

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list