Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Warren W. Tarkington v. United States Lines Company

222 F.2d 358

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1955-05-11
Topic
bankruptcy

How later courts describe this case

  • holding that a motion for a new trial based on a conflict between a district court ruling and a subsequent Supreme Court decision should be construed as a Rule 60(b) motion to vacate based on mistake of law
  • a Supreme Court decision handed down after the district court initially entered judgment indicated that the district court had erred; Rule 60(b
  • change in the law by decision of a higher court after the judgment held to require trial court to correct its “mistake” in applying former law

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Warren W. Tarkington v. United States Lines Company. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
47 opinions
TARKINGTON v. UNITED STATES LINES COMPANY,222 F.2d 358(2nd Cir. 1955)
Warren W. TARKINGTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES LINES COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 284, Docket 23528.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued April 18, 1955.
Decided May 11, 1955.
Page 359
Appeal from a judgment entered on a directed verdict after a trial before Judge Edelstein and a jury. The action was brought by a stevedore against the owner of a vessel which he had been unloading, based on the unseaworthiness of the vessel because of the alleged presence of saddle soap on a hatchway ladder. The Judge directed a verdict because the owner of the vessel had surrendered control of the ladder during the period of the accident, Mollica v. Compania Sud-Americana DeVapores, 2 Cir.,202 F.2d 25, and entered a final judgment. Twenty-one days later plaintiff moved for a new trial on the ground that Alaska S.S. Co. v. Petterson,347 U.S. 396, 74 S.Ct. 601, 98 L.Ed. 798, decided subsequent to the instant case, laid down a legal rule contrary to that applied in the cases on which the trial judge in the instant case had relied. The motion was denied without opinion. Plaintiff has appealed.
Jacob Rassner, New York City (Harvey Goldstein, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.

Kirlin, Campbell Keating, New York City (Walter X. Connor and Vernon Sims Jones, New York City, of counsel), for appellee.
Before CLARK, Chief Judge, and FRANK and HINCKS, Circuit Judges.
FRANK, Circuit Judge.
1. Judge Edelstein correctly interpreted the rule of Mollica v. Compania Sud-Americana DeVapores, 2 Cir.,202 F.2d 25, and other cases, and properly directed a verdict for the defendant under the law as then interpreted in this Circuit.

2. An appeal of the original judgment is barred by the fact that plaintiff did not file his notice of appeal until May 28, 1954, sixty-four days after entry of the original judgment. But the appeal is timely as to the question raised by the motion to reopen the judgment. See, e.g., United States v. Wissahickon Tool Works, 2 Cir.,200 F.2d 936.

3. On April 5, 1954, the Supreme Court decided Alaska S.S. Co. v. Petterson,347 U.S. 396, 74 S.Ct. 601, 98 L.Ed. 798, affirming, on the opinion below, the decision of the Ninth CircuitPage 360in Petterson v. Alaska S.S. Co.,205 F.2d 478, 479. The opinion of the Ninth Circuit had expressly rejected the "`relinquishment of control'" doctrine of the Second Circuit expressed in Mollica v. Compania Sud-Americana DeVapores, 2 Cir.,202 F.2d 25, and other cases. Since the doctrine of the Petterson case conflicts with the cases on which the trial judge relied in directing a verdict, the trial judge should have treated plaintiff's motion as a motion under Fed.Rules Civ. Proc. rule 60(b), 28 U.S.C.A., to correct a mistake of the court. Thus viewed, plaintiff's appeal is timely, for the motion was filed ten days after the decision of the Supreme Court in Petterson, and the notice of appeal filed within thirty days after the denial of that motion.

The judgment is reversed, and the action remanded for a new trial on the issue of unseaworthiness.