Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 13 views

    Hanna v. The Meteor, 179 F.2d 957, 2d Cir. (1950)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This is an appeal of a case where a libel was filed against a steamship for unpaid work and materials. The lower court dismissed the libel based on a prior case, but the appellate court found that dismissal was improper. Specifically: 1) The lower court incorrectly dismissed the libel based on a prior unrelated case instead of having a trial on the merits of this case. 2) There was no evidence the vessel was "dead" or withdrawn from commerce as found in the prior case, so the libelants were entitled to present their own case. 3) The case was reversed and remanded for trial on the merits.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Hanna v. The Meteor, 179 F.2d 957, 2d Cir. (1950)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    13 views2 pages
    This is an appeal of a case where a libel was filed against a steamship for unpaid work and materials. The lower court dismissed the libel based on a prior case, but the appellate court found that dismissal was improper. Specifically: 1) The lower court incorrectly dismissed the libel based on a prior unrelated case instead of having a trial on the merits of this case. 2) There was no evidence the vessel was "dead" or withdrawn from commerce as found in the prior case, so the libelants were entitled to present their own case. 3) The case was reversed and remanded for trial on the merits.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1950-01-30 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 179 F.2d 957 Docket: 21540

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This is an appeal of a case where a libel was filed against a steamship for unpaid work and materials. The lower court dismissed the libel based on a prior case, but the appellate court found that dismissal was improper. Specifically: 1) The lower court incorrectly dismissed the libel based on a prior unrelated case instead of having a trial on the merits of this case. 2) There was no evidence the vessel was "dead" or withdrawn from commerce as found in the prior case, so the libelants were entitled to present their own case. 3) The case was reversed and remanded for trial on the merits.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    13 views2 pages

    Hanna v. The Meteor, 179 F.2d 957, 2d Cir. (1950)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This is an appeal of a case where a libel was filed against a steamship for unpaid work and materials. The lower court dismissed the libel based on a prior case, but the appellate court found that dismissal was improper. Specifically: 1) The lower court incorrectly dismissed the libel based on a prior unrelated case instead of having a trial on the merits of this case. 2) There was no evidence the vessel was "dead" or withdrawn from commerce as found in the prior case, so the libelants were entitled to present their own case. 3) The case was reversed and remanded for trial on the merits.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    179 F.

    2d 957

    HANNA et al.
    v.
    THE METEOR et al.
    No. 150, Docket 21540.

    United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.


    Argued Jan. 10, 1950.
    Decided Jan. 30, 1950.

    Logan Cresap, Jr., New York City, for appellants.


    Bernard Tompkins, New York City, for appellees.
    Before AUGUSTUS N. HAND, CHASE and FRANK, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM.

    This is an appeal from a final decree dismissing a libel against the Steamship
    Meteor for work, labor and material furnished for the vessel. The claimants of
    the vessel moved to dismiss the libel on the ground that the suit of the libellants
    was outside the maritime and admiralty jurisdiction.

    The libel alleged that the libellants had made certain repairs and furnished
    material to the vessel upon the order of the owner amounting to $585 for which
    they had obtained a maritime lien in the amount of their claim which the
    owners of the vessel had refused to pay. The amended answer admitted the
    rendition of the services which consisted of painting the vessel, but denied that
    it was used in commerce in the business of carrying cargo and passengers for
    hire and denied that the matters in issue were within the admiralty and maritime
    jurisdiction of the court. Upon the pleadings and an affidavit of the proctor for
    the claimants to the effect that the painting of the vessel was above the
    waterline and that this court in another litigation- instituted by one Murry to
    establish a lien for wharfage- had held that the vessel was a 'dead' ship was not
    subject to a lien for wharfage, the claimants moved to vacate an attachment of
    the vessel and to dismiss the libel. The trial judge dismissed the libel upon the
    authority of our decision, above referred to, in Murry v. Schwartz, et al., 2 Cir.,

    175 F.2d 72. It is evident that the decree of the court below must be reversed.
    There is no evidence in the present record that the Meteor was a 'dead' ship. On
    the contrary, the libel alleged that she was a vessel used by the owners in the
    general business of carrying cargo and passengers for hire. The denial of the
    allegation of admiralty jurisdiction in the amended answer raised an issue
    which must be disposed of upon a trial and not by the mere reference to the
    judgment in a suit by another libellant which was manifestly not res judicata in
    a suit by other parties.
    3

    It is argued that 46 U.S.C.A. 971 1 applied to this case, whether or not the
    Meteor was a 'dead' ship, that our decision in Murray v. Schwartz, supra, related
    only to wharfage liens, and that liens for wharfage are not recognized upon
    vessels out of service and have received a special treatment by our courts of
    admiralty which in view of the above statute should not be given to services
    such as the libellants performed in the case at bar. While we see no justification
    for the attempted distinction between a lien for wharfage and a lien for repairs,
    if the vessel had been completely withdrawn from commerce, we must hold
    that the libellants are not bound by findings of fact made against a libellant in
    another suit, and are entitled to present their claim in their own way under the
    libel which they have filed.

    For the foregoing reasons, the decree is reversed, with costs to the appellants,
    and the cause is remanded for trial on the merits.

    Sec. 971. Persons entitled to lien


    'Any person furnishing repairs, supplies, towage, use of dry dock or marine
    railway, or other necessaries, to any vessel, whether foreign or domestic, upon
    the order of the owner of such vessel, or of a person authorized by the owner,
    shall have a maritime lien on the vessel, which may be enforced by suit in rem,
    and it shall not be necessary to allege or prove that credit was given to the
    vessel.'

    You might also like