TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

American Oil Company, Libelant- v. The Steamship Ionian Challenger, Her Engines, Boilers, Etc., and Petroleum Transport, Ltd.

AMERICAN OIL COMPANY, Libelant-Appellant, v. the STEAMSHIP IONIAN CHALLENGER, Her Engines, Boilers, Etc., and Petroleum Transport, Ltd., Respondents-Appellees

Am. Oil Co., Libelant- v. The S.S. Ionian Challenger, 366 F.2d 509 (2d Cir. 1966)
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
September 23, 1966
Docket
Nos. 14, Docket 30307
Judges
Waterman, Moore, Anderson
Citations
366 F.2d 5091966 U.S. App. LEXIS 4893

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

The parties executed a “Warshipoilvoy” (Rev.) 11/1/45 form of tanker voyage Charter Party, a document whose standard provisions were well known to both parties. One of these provisions, paragraph 23(b), provided:

(b) The Owner and the vessel in all matters arising under this Charter Party or any bill of lading issued hereunder shall be entitled to the like privileges, rights, and immunities as are contained in Sections 3(6), 4, and 11 of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) of the United States approved April 16, 1936.

Section 3(6), 46 U.S.C. § 1303 (6) of COGSA provides in pertinent part:

****** * * * [T]he carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability in respect of loss or damage unless suit is brought within one year after delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered * *.

Almost three years after delivery of the cargo of oil the libelant-appellant, which was both shipper and consignee, brought suit against respondents alleging that because of improper attention to the cargo during the voyage the discharging of the cargo was delayed at the port of delivery and that this delay resulted in delaying other vessels owned by libelant from berthing, to the damage of libelant.

Respondents moved for summary judgment on the ground that the action was time-barred by the one year period of limitation contained in the charter party sued upon.

The court below held that as the alleged delays in berthing other vessels were alleged by libelant to have been caused by improper attention to the cargo carried by respondents, the alleged delays were “matters arising under [the] Charter Party” and therefore respondents were entitled to plead in defense to the action the rights contained in Section 3 (6) of COGSA, and granted the motion.

We agree with the district judge that libelant-appellant’s suit is time-barred and affirm the decree.

How later courts describe this case

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

1967: 11969: 11974: 11995: 119672026peak 1967 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Orient Mid-East Lines, Inc. v. Shipment of Rice496 F.2d 1032 (5th Cir. 1974)
  2. Francosteel Corp. v. N. v. Nederlandsch Amerikaansche249 Cal. App. 2d 880 (1967)
  3. Minex v. International Trading Company of Virginia303 F. Supp. 205 (E.D. Va. 1969)
  4. Anyangwe v. Nedlloyd Lines909 F. Supp. 315 (D. Maryland 1995)

Most recent

  1. Anyangwe v. Nedlloyd Lines909 F. Supp. 315 (D. Maryland 1995)
  2. Orient Mid-East Lines, Inc. v. Shipment of Rice496 F.2d 1032 (5th Cir. 1974)
  3. Minex v. International Trading Company of Virginia303 F. Supp. 205 (E.D. Va. 1969)
  4. Francosteel Corp. v. N. v. Nederlandsch Amerikaansche249 Cal. App. 2d 880 (1967)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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