Legal Document

344 U.S. 386 73 Supreme Court Reporter 381 97 L.Ed. 422 DE LA RAMA S.S. CO., Inc.v.UNITED STATES. Number 368. Argued Jan. 15, 1953. Decided Feb. 2, Mr. Harold M. Kennedy, Brooklyn, N.Y., for petitioner. Benjamin Forman, Washington, D.C., respondent. Justice FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion of Court. 1 This is a suit in admiralty against United States, which libellant, petitioner here, sought to recover its loss V. Dona Aurora, was sunk by enemy action on December 25, 1942. The basis libel war risk policy issued War Shipping Administration under Risk Insurance Act June 29, 1940, 54 Statutes-at-Large 689, 690, as amended ,46 States Code KF62 § 1128d, 46 Annotated KF65 U5 1128d. filed 22, 1944. On July 1947, Congress passed Joint Resolution putting an end large body powers. Among hundred-odd statutory provisions thus repealed Act. 61 449, 450. October 4, 1948, determination damages advance trial referred Commissioner; his report March 23, 1950; it confirmed (subject some exceptions) 27, 1950, 92 F.Supp. 243; case reached 6, 1951. Government first time then raised jurisdictional issue this turns namely, whether District had, been deprived jurisdiction retain Resolution. 2 rejected Government's contention, holding that 13 Revised Statutes, amended,* saved libellant's cause from being extinguished 1947. court properly called attention fact 13, originally 4 February 1871, 16 431, 432, reenacted, amended, 58 118, U.S.C.(Supp. I) 109, 633, 635, after passage Resolution, wit, 30, 98 514. However, view prevailed Appeals. That held 'the district 1947 lost power deal further with litigation.' 198 Federal Reporter, 2nd Series 182, 186. recognized importance ruling, and we brought limiting our grant certiorari question 883, 184. 3 precise contention made Appeals, there, goes long way toward disposing itself. did not contend liability came Resolution's repeal Apart R.S. Constitution precludes extinction liability. Lynch versus 292 571, 840, 78 1434. realized survived but claimed mode provided enforcement not. In Court, receded even position. It here took academic position giving arguments pro con, stating reasons why General Savings Statute, now U.S.C.(Supp.I) should be govern situation, also inapplicable. We find latter considerations more subtle than persuasive, conclude urged support continuing courts hear causes arose prior must prevail. dealing present problem idle thresh over old disputation when is, not, bound statute unrestricted terms. lays down general rule regarding implications existing rights law created them. embodies principle fair dealing. When has entered upon conventional commercial endeavor, such insurance business, much offends standards fairness violate private enterprise do so. 5 brings us crux below, while obligation insurer, into sinking Aurora 1942, 'liability' could enforced only Claims, conclusion no substantial tenuous bits legal reasoning compounded. 6 By Statute merely save incurred statute; itself: 7 'and shall treated still remaining force purpose sustaining any proper * liability.' 8 see reason careful provision Congress, keeping alive purpose, respected doing so will attain exactly purpose. 9 demonstrates concrete, dollars-and-cents saving Indeed, wholly unless portion gives survives. As fairly points out, deny opportunity enforce right send Claims instead diminish substantially recoverable amount, since sitting interest accrues filing suit, 745, does begin run until entry judgment. 28 (Supp. IV) 2516, 2516. 10 For acknowledge full extent enforceability recalls what said Western Maid, 257 419, 433, 42 159, 161, 66 299: 'Legal obligations exist cannot are ghosts seen elusive grasp.' 11 rightly difference between statutes solely their scope create prescribe how vindicated. statutes, 'substantive' 'procedural' disparate categories; they fused components expression policy. very take away jurisdiction, course survive, pending suits, expressly reserved. Ex parte McCardle, Wall. 506, 19 264, historic illustration withdrawal less famous equally clear examples Hallowell Commons, 239 36 202, 60 409, Bruner 343 112, 72 581. If aim destroy tribunal or cases it, there finding exceptions explicit. But where object future those have accrued, strike enforcing special relation accrued part parcel mutilate hence defeat rather legislative acknowledges were considerations, apart matter interest, insured access relegating him Claims. repealing among numerous other concerned undesirability suitability forum suits terminating powers 'shooting war' had terminated. 12 While neutral survival Court's Act, emphatically hold that, event, extinguish case, pursuant Suits Admiralty 9, 1920, 41 525, 741 et seq., seq. Since concluded correct before would superfluous consider applicability statute. Reversed. 14 DOUGLAS concurs result. 'The effect release penalty, forfeiture, statute, provide, prosecution expiration temporary

Classification Label: 7