TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Admiral Oriental Line v. Atlantic Gulf & Oriental S. S. Co.

Admiral Oriental Line v. Atl. Gulf & Oriental S. S. Co., 88 F.2d 26 (2d Cir. 1937)
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
February 17, 1937
Docket
No. 114
Citations
88 F.2d 261937 A.M.C. 2891937 U.S. App. LEXIS 3021

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

PER CURIAM.

After this cause went back to the District Court, a question arose as to in *27 terest and costs. The United States contends that it cannot be liable for either because the recovery was under the Tucker Act ( 24 Stat. 505 ), which does not allow them. It also objects to an attorney’s allowance of $100, which, though proper in admiralty, is not at common law. This motion is to clear up these points. As to the original action of the Admiral Oriental Line against the Atlantic Gulf & Oriental Steamship Company, there can be no doubt that the judgment should include interest and costs, although, as the Admiral Oriental Line itself agrees, the docket fee must be cut from $100 to $20. The recovery over of any part of this payment by the Atlantic Gulf & Oriental Steamship Company against the United States must be under the Tucker Act, not in the admiralty, as we have said. We are asked as to that to reconsider our decision, but Minturn v. Maynard, 17 How. 477 , 15 L.Ed. 235 , still seems to us flat on the point. The report is indeed very short, but it states that the libelant was a general ship’s agent and broker, and we can see no material distinction between such an agent and a managing operator; if the case is to be overruled, only the Supreme Court should do it. The position of the United States is therefore right. The Atlantic Gulf & Oriental Steamship Company ought to have paid the Admiral Oriental Line’s claim at once; any accrued interest and the costs of the action which it must pay arose from its default. Yet, if it had paid at once, it could have recovered neither interest nor costs against the United States in a suit under the Tucker Act; these would have arisen, it is true, because of the wrongful refusal of the United States to pay a lawful claim, but for reasons good or bad the United States does not choose to make amends for such wrongs. The same is of course á fortiori true of the Atlantic Gulf & Oriental Steamship Company’s claim against the United States to recover its direct outlay. Therefore interest and costs will be allowed against the Atlantic Gulf & Oriental Steamship Company in the action of the Admiral Oriental Line against it — reducing the docket fee, however — but will be denied in favor of the Atlantic Gulf & Oriental Steamship Company against the United States as to both its claims.

How later courts describe this case

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

1945: 11958: 11984: 11985: 119452026peak 1945 · 1

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Minturn v. Maynard, 58 U.S. (17 How.) 477 (1855) 63

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