Legal Document

354 U.S. 129 77 Supreme Court Reporter 1103 1 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 1234 The BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES of America, as Owner THE U.S.N.S. HAITI VICTORY, et al. Number 247. Argued April 29, 1957. Decided June 10, Mr. Dean Acheson, Washington, D.C. for petitioner. Asst. Atty. Gen. George C. Doub, D.C., respondent, the States, Owner, etc. Wilbur E. Dow, Jr., New York City, respondents W. G. Haslam, and others. Justice CLARK delivered opinion Court. British Transport Commission, owner overnight ferry, Duke York, questions power a District sitting in an admiralty limitation proceeding to permit parties cross-claim against each other damages arising out same maritime collision. Haiti Victory, had filed original which Commission along with others claims. While was pending some claimants cross-claims and, addition, asserted 'set-off' 'cross-claim' answer latter's claim. dismissed all on ground that 'a does not provide forum adjudication liability co-claimants other.' Appeals reversed holding 'As practical matter well equitable one, herein should be allowed implead Commission.' 4 Cir., 230 Federal Reporter, 2nd 139, 144. Because question is important one jurisdiction we granted certiorari, limited question. 352 821, 59, 46. We agree Appeals. 2 On May 6, 1953, North Sea, Naval Transport, owned by rammed channel bow broke away from vessel sank result deep cut her port side just forward bridge inflicted Haiti. suffered only minor damage Duke's loss claimed $1,500,000. In addition several 437 persons aboard were killed, many injured, them lost thier baggage. returned thereafter, this under §§ 183—186 Limited Liability Act, R.S. 4281 4289, amended, 46 Code KF62 181—196, Annotated KF65 U5 exoneration from, or of, resulting petitioner further alleged collision 'caused fault neglect charge * occurred without part *.' 3 claim $1,500,000 it claimed, inter alia, 'not caused contributed any negligence claimant but done, occasioned incurred privity knowledge Petitioner its managing officers supervising agents master Victory will shown trial' answered 'was either sole joint both Victory'; sum $65,000, 'has also been subjected claims passengers members crews vessels herein, presently approximate $809,714 personal injury death, $45,975 property than York; prays set off recoup claimant, Various meanwhile impleading petitions alleging S.S. 'Duke York' ' setting out, did particular acts upon based. these Act offers complete recovery *. To prosecute another litigation would unfair. latter has intervened compulsion, court enjoining his resort tribunal. Therefore, responsibility enlarged beyond incident Obedience injunction expose him attack which, regular course, he subject residence place voluntary entrance.' hearing 'restricted issues liabilities two vessels, collision,' exonerated liability, solely blame 131 F.Supp. 712. This finding subseqnetly affirmed before us.1 reversing dismissal reasoned 'Modern codes procedure have reflected facets: (1) rights, if can fairly decided single legal proceeding; (2) who submit themselves bound court's decision questions, appropriate seasonably raised in, proceeding. Those ideas, think, reasonably deduced spirit, letter, 56th Admiralty Rule (28 U.S.C.A.).' at page 145. 5 excellent coverage Court's cases given historical incidents forming background went into adoption relieves us minute recitation history. See Norwich & N.Y. Transp. company versus Wright, 1872, 13 Wall. 104, 20 L.Ed. 585; Providence N.Y.S.S. Hill Mfg. Co., 1883, 109 578, 379, 617, 27 1038; Main Williams, 1894, 152 122, 14 486, 38 381; Just Chambers, 1941, 312 383, 668, 61 687, 85 903. history shows although patterned earlier English statutes foundations sprang roots general law medieval Europe. 'The real object act limit owners their interest adventure,' supra, 131, 488, thus 'to encourage shipbuildig induce capitalists invest money branch industry,' 121. 6 Congress provisions left form modes judiciary. Twenty years after passage adopted rules respect practice. xii xiii. 56 first came General Rules 59.2 As noted, originally fashioned accommodate cross-libels marine cases, acting inherent bring whose presence enable do substantial justice regard entire matter, courts soon began extend practice analogy See, e.g., Alert, D.C.188., 40 KF105 F3 836; Moore, Practice (2d ed. 1948), 450—456. expressed Benedict, (6th 1940), § 349, 534, 'the 'equity rule' wide extension principle applied require appearance additional respondent might responsible thereof.' 1920 revision 59th became amended Court, authorized person 'partly wholly liable way remedy over, contribution otherwise, growing matter.' 254 707.3 present-day proceeding, therefore, springs 1851 rules. Neither source indicates precluded ordinary procedures. fact, Bradley put Scotland, 1881, 105 24, 33, 26 1001, 'we may say, once all, (the rules) intended restrict claiming benefit law, aid them. referred purpose formulating give full protection ship-owners such case. They prevent availing process itself entitle adopt.' Accord, Ex parte Slayton, 1882, 451, 1066. 7 It Commission's contention inapplicable co-claimant rule, says, refers libels use word 'claimant' includes involved those making vessel. But seen long held encompass between libel actions. determined pleading Star, 106 17, 41, 91, discussion infra. therefore said provides concourse serves function cross-libel determine rights well; recognized encompassed 50.4 Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc., McMahon, 1956, 235 142. appears then started admittedly no complaint. And pointed promulgated technicalities restricting relevant it. There requirement facts case tailored fit exact language rule. initial petition partly asked it; entered prove contest allegation Duke. are present litigation. now already being party suit court. what 'tag' whether 'suit' personam, offensive defensive nature, rather parties. sufficient say Chief Taft unanimous Hartford Accident Indemnity Southern Pacific 1927, 273 207, 47 357, 71 612, 'that ease adjusted equity (limitation) administration looks disposition many-cornered controversy Id., 216, 359. Hughes 386—387, 690, believe shadowy. much potential disaster receiver perfecting res estate. scope determination petitioner's nor here disaster, legitimate claimants, adjudicated admits judgment judicata courts. Why follow scattered they eight countries world recover damages? required file secondary action country merely amount due when evidence here? Logic efficient judicial necessary fund Otherwise 'water haul' completely character Furthermore, voluntarily compulsion. asking done regarding collision; denied affirmatively sought Haiti; $1,500,000; contested Haiti's exoneration. respects Commission—it lost. Now having lost, while won, enter continued. asserts neither Haiti, damaged extent 115 losses reason compels conclusion administer event like Whether virtue 44,5 admiralty's heretofore hold concomitant factual situation adjudicate demands made disaster. too reflects basic policy Civil Procedure, 28 served origin our modern federal procedure, tied mast forerunner eliminating practices. 8 true passed directly. However, examination American procedures resorted co-parties concursus least since 91. initially could obtained entitled necessity separate suits. Manitoba, 1887, 122 97, 1158, 30 1095, libelant cross-libelant received limitation. Thereafter, City Boston, 1909, 182 171, 173, filing there begun. note express rule time permitting 'following 59 (now 56).' thought (be recovered) independent suit' properly judicated 'reported precedent allowance proceedings.' re Eastern Dredging D.C.1909, 179, 183. 1919 Second Circuit Adah, 258 377, 381, Judge Hough declared 'Whether necessary, absolving fix else, need decide.' where 'It enough come themselves. Having become parties, decree wherein parties.' 381. echo said, 'when choose (a nation's) redress' cannot 'complain pages 31—32, 1001. Later Steel Products 1928, 24 657, squarely considered proceedings. States' right Inventor,' id., 659, cross-suit, citing Thekla, 1924, 266 328, 45 112, 69 313. Inventor, 1930, 43 958. recently 142, 143, unanimously reaffirmed principles cases. arose cause, effectuating 'economy trial litigation' so desired administration. 9 points permitted.6 find none apposite case, perhaps Jersey Barging Corporation T. Atlantic D. Jones D.C.1955, 135 97. That convert petitioners' impleaded claimant. subsequently, effect, overruled add easily distinguishable here. No effort toward affirmative defense, forwarded statement mail. Nor think Algoma H.B.R. Great Lakes Transit Corp., 1936, 86 708, affords comfort. Learned Hand railroad, improperly laid venue. dicta indicating nothing affirmatively, Knox's interpretation Clio—The Springhill, 1948 A.M.C. 75, 77. counterclaim Therefore recovered affirmatively. stand proposition permissible filed. view supported participated. 10 depends heavily Department Highways State Louisiana Jahncke Service, 1949, 174 894, Fifth Circuit. inapposite also. Jahncke's barges tore loose windstorm Highways' bridge. petitioned Department, answer, attempted Town Madisonville, barges, struck Obviously connection, wind water, Madisonville's independently moored Jahncke's. Madisonville distinctly incident. 11 dire consequences flow exposing cross-claims. predictions entirely speculative us, comment believes more serious. First says foreign frightened more, petitioner, 'than robbing Peter pay Paul.' prevailed Paul robbed. compulsion exerted preventing them; suits jurisdictions ineffective unless comity recognition; assuming levying attachments offending port, owner; still little effect operation law. Most shipowners visit ports living Self-protection balance things out. even not, good fault, judicata, recovers nothing? abortive. Petitioner's theory makes pawns game win successful battle fight day fairness requires seek therein exposure connected identical ask more. permits force litigants forego Foreign most different ours parcel itself. conclude final analysis manifest advantages serve best interests unfortunate victims 12 Other procedural detail leave past Affirmed. BRENNAN, dissenting, whom FRANKFURTER HARLAN join, announced FRANKFURTER. 15 terms, authorizes instant however, libel, N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions pause examine arguments marshalled favor proceedings, for, my opinion, desirable, introduced amending Rules, commenced Bar 16 inequitable, circumstances apply today. contracts passenger ferry operating fixed schedule Hook Holland Harwich, England. tickets transportation across Sea railroad station Harwich. containing favorable challenge footnote brief 17 'Under far lower generally per ton tonnage. Merchant Shipping 1894 (57 58 Vict. chapter 60) Sec. 503. substantially A carrier contract notice negligence, periods assertion different. Collision Claims—Difference Between Law, Lloyds List Gazette, July 14, 1953.' (Emphasis added.) 18 see Adler Dickson, (1954) Lloyd's L.R. 267 (C.A.). prospect fully applied. limitations exonerating shipowner stipulated public shall null void effect. 4283, 49 Statutes-at-Large 1480, 183c, 183c; Note, 65 Yale L.J. 553; Moore Scantic Line, 843. 19 compelled voluntarily. infer participate based understanding called face. gave slightest hint was: 'Notice America pursuant Title 46, U.S.Code, sections 183—189 789 (46 183—189, 789), voyage USNS VICTORY Bremerhaven, Germany, terminating 8, Bremerhaven. All must them, oath, provided 52, Clerk House Granby Street, Post Office Building, Norfolk, Virginia, mail proctors copy October 15, defaulted. Personal attendance required. Any desiring petition, 53, copy.' 21 Plainly told chose prepared issue anywise draw defenses York's passengers. information alert hazard fair opportunity weigh factor reaching very stay meet home grounds. fundamental litigant meet. that, notice, litigate crossclaims here, view, denies name equity. 22 reverse direct affirmance because, alleges, counsel felt waived Government 'Knock Knock' Agreement, 1780, E.A.S. 282, 4, 1942. Subseqnetly, appeal pending, advised consider government Consequently, following decision, proceedings 1883 codification Hudson, D.C.1883, 162. part: 'In collision, proceeded against, shall, presented answering within allow, suitable allegations showing contributing particulars thereof, ought damage, pray issued end, 112 743. remainder similar last sentences 56. provides: suit, rem (as be) (individual corporation) libellant matter. later during progress cause allow. Such contain end. Thereupon issue, duly served, proceed against; petition; new libel; rendered appertain. every stipulation, sureties, approved corporate surety, brought process, costs, damages, expenses awarded decree, appellate court; bonds stipulations prayer libellant.' 707. 50 'Whenever filed, security respond usual forth cross-libel, court, shown, otherwise direct; stayed until directs.' 702. 44 statute, Courts regulate manner deem expedient justice, inconsistent rules.' 698. 708; D.C.S.D.N.Y.1955, 97; Petition Texas D.C.S.D.N.Y.1948, 81 758; Poling Bros. 5—Tom Wogan, 1937 1513 (D.C.E.D.N.Y.).

Classification Label: 7