Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Barbarino v. Stanhope S. S. Co.

150 F.2d 54

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1945-06-04
Topic
finance

PER CURIAM. Barbarino, a longshoreman, filed his libel against Stanhope Steamship Company, Ltd., to recover damages for personal injuries sustained while working on the respondent’s vessel. The respondent impleaded the libellant’s employer, Northern Dock Company. After a trial the court announced its decision, awarding the libellant damages in the amount of $12,000 and dismissing the respondent’s petition against the impleaded respondent. Upon a motion by the libellant for a reconsideration of the amount of damages, the court ordered a new trial of the issues between the libellant and the respondent only.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Barbarino v. Stanhope S. S. Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
17 opinions
BARBARINO v. STANHOPE S.S. CO.,150 F.2d 54(2nd Cir. 1945)
BARBARINO v. STANHOPE S.S. CO., Limited, et al.
No. 344.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
June 4, 1945.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.

In Admiralty. Libel by Salvatore Barbarino against the Stanhope Steamship Company, Limited, for injuries sustained by longshoreman while working on vessel, wherein the Northern Dock Company, Inc., was impleaded. From an order of December 8, 1944, granting libelant a new trial after decision awarding libelant damages and dismissing the petition against impleaded respondent,61 F. Supp. 171and from an order denying a motion for reconsideration of the order of December 8, respondent Stanhope Steamship Company, Limited, appeals.

Appeal dismissed.
Reid, Cunningham Freehill, of New York City (Frederick H. Cunningham, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.

Paul C. Matthews, of New York City, for appellee.
Before SWAN, CHASE, and FRANK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Barbarino, a longshoreman, filed his libel against Stanhope Steamship Company, Ltd., to recover damages for personal injuries sustained while working on the respondent's vessel. The respondent impleaded the libellant's employer, Northern Dock Company. After a trial the court announced its decision, awarding the libellant damages in the amount of $12,000 and dismissing the respondent's petition against the impleaded respondent. Upon a motion by the libellant for a reconsideration of the amount of damages, the court ordered a new trial of the issues between the libellant and the respondent only. This order was entered December 8, 1944. The respondent moved for a reconsideration ofPage 55this order. Its motion was denied January 23, 1945 and on January 29th it appealed from both orders.

The court lacks jurisdiction to review these orders. Only final orders are appealable under 28 U.S.C.A. § 225 and only interlocutory decrees "determining the rights and liabilities of the parties" under 28 U.S.C.A. § 227. Obviously the granting of a new trial was neither a final order nor an interlocutory decree which determines any rights and liabilities between the libellant and respondent. See Fairmount Glass Works v. Cub Fork Coal Co.,287 U.S. 474, 481, 53 S.Ct. 252, 77 L.Ed. 439; France Canada S.S. Co. v. French Republic, 2 Cir., 285 F. 290, 294, certiorari denied261 U.S. 615, 43 S.Ct. 361, 67 L.Ed. 828; The Maria, 2 Cir.,67 F.2d 571; The Natchez, 5 Cir., 78 F. 183. A fortiori the order denying the respondent's motion for a rehearing is not reviewable. Conboy v. First Nat. Bank,203 U.S. 141, 145, 27 S. Ct. 50, 51 L.Ed. 128; Pfister v. Northern Ill. Finance Corporation,317 U.S. 144, 149-150, 63 S.Ct. 133, 87 L.Ed. 146.

Appeals dismissed.