Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Christos Vassos, Libelant-Appellant v. Societa Trans-Oceanica Canopus, S.A., Mar-Trade Corporation and the S.S. Canopus

272 F.2d 182

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1959-11-19
Topic
international-arbitration

PER CURIAM. Libelant, an alien seaman, seeks redress for personal injuries allegedly sustained on May 15, 1949, while aboard the S.S. Canopus, a vessel of Panamanian registry. In a reasoned opinion, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 143 F.Supp. 945, Judge Bicks sustained exceptions to the libel because of a previous decision in 1954 by Judge Edelstein in a civil action between the parties as well as in the exercise of independent discretion to decline to accept jurisdiction in this suit between aliens. Judge Edelstein’s dismissal of the civil action was based both upon the statute of limitations and upon a refusal to accept jurisdiction.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Christos Vassos, Libelant-Appellant v. Societa Trans-Oceanica Canopus, S.A., Mar-Trade Corporation and the S.S. Canopus. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
6 opinions
VASSOS v. SOCIETA TRANS-OCEANICA CANOPUS,272 F.2d 182(2nd Cir. 1959)
Christos VASSOS, Libelant-Appellant, v. SOCIETA TRANS-OCEANICA CANOPUS,
S.A., Mar-Trade Corporation and The S.S. CANOPUS, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 39, Docket 24812.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Submitted November 6, 1959.
Decided November 19, 1959.
Jacob Rassner, New York City, for libelant-appellant.

Victor S. Cichanowicz, of Giallorenzi Cichanowicz, New York City, for respondents-appellees.
Before CLARK, Chief Judge, and HINCKS and WATERMAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Libelant, an alien seaman, seeks redress for personal injuries allegedly sustained on May 15, 1949, while aboard the S.S. Canopus, a vessel of Panamanian registry. In a reasoned opinion, D.C.S.D.N.Y.,143 F. Supp. 945, Judge Bicks sustained exceptions to the libel because of a previous decision in 1954 by Judge Edelstein in a civil action between the parties as well as in the exercise of independent discretion to decline to accept jurisdiction in this suit between aliens.

Judge Edelstein's dismissal of the civil action was based both upon the statute of limitations and upon a refusal to accept jurisdiction. No appeal was taken from it. Citing N.Y.Civil Practice Act, § 23, appellant tries here to reopen the question of jurisdiction and assert a new theory of liability. But the claim is now completelyres judicataon jurisdictional as well as substantive issues. Stoll v. Gottlieb,305 U.S. 165, 170, 172, 59 S.Ct. 134, 83 L.Ed. 104; AngelPage 183v. Bullington,330 U.S. 183, 190, 67 S.Ct. 657, 91 L.Ed. 832; Koziol v. The Fylgia, 2 Cir.,230 F.2d 651, certiorari denied352 U.S. 827, 77 S.Ct. 40, 1 L.Ed.2d 49. And any attempt to reopen a judgment in a civil action is completely controlled by F.R.Civ.P. 60(b), not by state statute.

Judgment affirmed.