Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/298/483/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 15:13:00+00:00

Document:
Justia › US Law › US Case Law › US Supreme Court › Volume 298 › United States v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co.
United States v. Atlantic Mutual Insurance Co.
1. A claim of contribution in general average presented against the United States by suit in the Court of Claims filed more than six years after the claim first accrued, is barred by U.S.C. Title 28, § 262. P. 488.
2. The right to contribution in general average accrues when all the elements essential to its existence are present, regardless of whether the appropriate means of enforcement be a suit in rem or a suit in personam. P. 298 U. S. 488.
3. The right to contribution in general average accrues and becomes enforceable upon the arrival of the ship at port of destination and delivery of the cargo, even though the amount of the required contribution has not then been liquidated. P. 298 U. S. 489.
4. Claims against the United States for general average contribution are brought and adjusted in the Court of Claims under U.S.C. Title 28, § 250(1). The claim may accrue and be sued on even though the damages sought be unliquidated. P. 298 U. S. 490.
5. An adjuster, engaged by a shipowner to make up a general average statement, is not an arbitrator, nor is his statement binding, as an account stated or otherwise, upon his principal. P. 298 U. S. 491.
Certiorari, 295 U.S. 727, to review a judgment for the Insurance Company upon its claim in general average contribution against the United States.
hire. During the voyage, fire broke out in the hold from a cause free from negligence, and, to prevent a loss of both vessel and cargo, the master caused part of the cargo to be jettisoned and water to be let into the hold, whereby other parts of the cargo were damaged. After the fire was extinguished, the transport continued the voyage and arrived at the port of destination January 19, 1919. All that remained of the cargo was then discharged and, with the master's assent, was delivered to its owners without obtaining from them any bond to secure payment of general average.
The part of the cargo belonging to the Philippine government and its railroad was insured against marine perils, including fire, by policies obtained before the voyage was begun. Substantial portions of this property were jettisoned or damaged at the time of the fire. April 12, 1921, the underwriter, in compliance with the policies, paid to the Philippine government and its railroad the amounts of their respective losses, and thereby became subrogated to their rights, if any, under the maritime rule respecting general average.
to be made by the United States to the underwriter by reason of the latter's subrogation to the rights of the Philippine government and its railroad at something over $40,000, and also computed the contributions to be made to the underwriter by other cargo owners. On March 28, 1928, the accounting officers of the United States denied the claim for contribution, and on December 10, 1928, the Comptroller General, on review, sustained that ruling. The claimant brought the present suit in the Court of Claims February 18, 1929.
"Every claim against the United States cognizable by the Court of Claims shall be forever barred unless the petition setting forth a statement thereof is filed in the court . . . within six years after the claim first accrues."
The government contends that the claim first accrued on January 19, 1919, when the transport reached its destination and delivered what remained of the cargo to the cargo owners. On the other hand, the claimant insists the claim first accrued on December 31, 1926, when the adjuster completed and rendered the general average statement. The court rejected the government's contention and sustained that of the claimant. In this, we think it erred.
did not depend upon whether it could be enforced by a suit in rem against the ship. Such a right accrues if and when all the elements essential to its existence are present, regardless of whether the appropriate means of enforcement be a suit in rem or a suit in personam. In this instance, as we shall show, a suit of the latter class was the appropriate means.
contribution may then be unliquidated is no obstacle, for, in proper sequence, liquidation comes after accrual, and can be made in the suit or action wherein the right is presented for adjudication. In this regard, a claim for contribution does not differ from many others where, at the time of accrual, the recoverable damages or amount due remains unliquidated. As was well said in a related case, [Footnote 6] "The law is familiar enough in actions of tort and in many actions in contract, with liabilities which are presently due, although unliquidated."
"upon any contract, express or implied, with the Government of the United States, or for damages, liquidated or unliquidated, in cases not sounding in tort, in respect of which claims the party would be entitled to redress against the United States either in a court of law, equity, or admiralty if the United States were suable."
It is under this statute that claims against the United States for general average contribution are brought and adjudicated in the Court of Claims. Obviously the statute contemplates that a claim may accrue and be sued on even though the damages sought be unliquidated.
For these reasons, we think it quite plain that the present claim accrued January 19, 1919, when the ship reached its destination and the cargo was delivered.
the services of an average stater, it is merely as a matter of business convenience on his part."
What we have said suffices to show that the claim accrued more than six years before the suit was begun, and therefore was barred by the statute.
U.S.C. Title 28, § 262.
Barnard v. Adams, 10 How. 270, 51 U. S. 303; Ralli v. Troop, 157 U. S. 386; Simonds v. White, 3 Barn. & C. 805, 811.
Bark San Fernando v. Jackson, 12 F. 341; The Emilia S. De Perez, 22 F.2d 585, 586; Det Forenede Dampskibs Selskab v. Insurance Co. of North America, 31 F.2d 658, cert. denied, 280 U.S. 571; Kohler & Chase v. United American Lines, 60 F.2d 530. And see 78 U. S. v. Dunham, 11 Wall. 1; 1 Benedict on Admiralty (5th Ed.) § 98.
Birkley v. Presgrave, 1 East, 220; Price v. Noble, 4 Taunt. 123; Dodson v. Wilson, 3 Camp. 480; Strang Steel, Co. v. A. Scott & Co., L.R. 14 App.Cas. 601, 606, 607.
Sturgess v. Cary, Fed.Cas. No. 13,572; 1 Story's Equity Jur. 14th ed. §§ 661 et seq.
Det Forenede Dampskibs Selskab v. Insurance Co. of North America, 31 F.2d 658, 660, cert. denied, 280 U.S. 571.
U.S.C. Title 28, § 250(1).
The Alpin, 23 F. 815, 819; The Santa Anna Maria, 49 F. 878, 879.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 262
 § 250
 § 262
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 98
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 250