Afran Transp. Co., as Owner of the S.S. Burgan, Etc., Libelant-Appellant v. The Motor Tanker Bergechief, A/s Sneffon, Claimant-Appellee. A/s Sneffon, as Owner of the Motor Tanker Bergechief, Cross-Libelant-Appellee v. The S.S. Burgan & Afran Transp. Co., Cross-Claimant-Respondent-Appellant, 285 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1960). · Go Syfert
Search
Afran Transp. Co., as Owner of the S.S. Burgan, Etc., Libelant-Appellant v. The Motor Tanker Bergechief, A/s Sneffon, Claimant-Appellee. A/s Sneffon, as Owner of the Motor Tanker Bergechief, Cross-Libelant-Appellee v. The S.S. Burgan & Afran Transp. Co., Cross-Claimant-Respondent-Appellant, 285 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1960). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
24 citation events across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Cement Division, National Gypsum Company, Reed & Brown, Incorporated, New York Marine Managers, Incorporated v. City of Milwaukee (ca7, 1994-08-05)
Treatment trajectory · 1960 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1960 1993 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cement Division, National Gypsum Company, Reed & Brown, Incorporated, New York Marine Managers, Incorporated v. City of Milwaukee (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
7th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
Corp., 504 F.2d 747, 748 (2d Cir.1974) (stating that in a collision ease involving mutual fault “the district court has discretion to deny [prejudgment] interest where the party to whom it would be awarded is substantially at fault.”); Afran Transport Co., 285 F.2d at 120 (suggesting that an award of prejudgment interest to the less culpable party in a case involving mutual fault would be appropriate to “ameliorate somewhat the harsh American rule that division of damages must be equal without reference to the degree of fault.”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Iberian Tankers Company v. Gates Construction Corp.
2d Cir. · 1974 · confidence medium
In Afran Transport we noted that, although under The Wright prejudgment interest is not usually awarded in mutual fault collision cases, a district court might nonetheless award it in the exercise of its discretion if the party to whom it is awarded is only slightly at fault, in order to ameliorate the harshness of the equal division of damages rule. 285 F.2d at 120.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Iberian Tankers Co. v. Gates Construction Corp.
S.D.N.Y. · 1974 · confidence medium
In Afran Transport, supra, the Second Circuit observed that “Normally the award of interest may await the court’s judgment which finds the amount due” (285 F.2d at 120).
cited Cited "see" Chitty v. M/V Valley Voyager
5th Cir. · 1969 · signal: see · confidence high
See Afran Transport Co. v. The Bergechief, 2 Cir. 1960, 285 F.2d 119 , 120.
cited Cited "see" Chitty v. Valley Voyager
5th Cir. · 1969 · signal: see · confidence high
See Afran Transport Co. v. The Bergechief, 2 Cir. 1960, 285 F.2d 119 , 120. 16 Affirmed.
cited Cited "see, e.g." International Ore & Fertilizer Corp. v. SGS Control Services, Inc.
S.D.N.Y. · 1993 · signal: see also · confidence low
Corp., 504 F.2d 747, 747 (2d Cir.1974); see also Afran Transport Co. v. The Bergechief, 285 F.2d 119 (2d Cir.1960).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Alkmeon Naviera, S.A. v. M/V MARINA L
unknown court · 1980 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Afran Transport Co. v. The Bergechief, 285 F.2d 119 , 120 (2d Cir. 1960).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Alkmeon Naviera v. Marina
unknown court · 1980 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Afran Transport Co. v. The Bergechief, 285 F.2d 119 , 120 (2d Cir. 1960).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Afran Transport Co., as Owner of the S.S. Burgan, Etc., Libelant-Appellant
v.
The Motor Tanker Bergechief, A/s Sneffon, Claimant-Appellee. A/s Sneffon, as Owner of the Motor Tanker Bergechief, Cross-Libelant-Appellee v. The S.S. Burgan and Afran Transport Co., Cross-Claimant-Respondent-Appellant
26374_1.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Dec 28, 1960.
285 F.2d 119
Published

285 F.2d 119

AFRAN TRANSPORT CO., as owner of The S.S. Burgan, etc., Libelant-Appellant,
v.
THE Motor Tanker BERGECHIEF, A/S Sneffon, Claimant-Appellee.
A/S SNEFFON, as owner of The Motor Tanker Bergechief, Cross-Libelant-Appellee,
v.
THE S.S. BURGAN and Afran Transport Co., Cross-Claimant-Respondent-Appellant.

No. 86.

No. 87.

Docket 26373.

Docket 26374.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued December 6, 1960.

Decided December 28, 1960.

Stanley R. Wright, of Burlingham, Hupper & Kennedy, New York City (H. Barton Williams and John S. Rogers, of Burlingham, Hupper & Kennedy, New York City, on the brief), for Afran Transport Co., appellant.

MacDonald Deming, of Haight, Gardner, Poor & Havens, New York City (Richard G. Ashworth and Terence J. Creighton, of Haight, Gardner, Poor & Havens, New York City, on the brief), for A/S Sneffon, appellee.

Before CLARK, WATERMAN, and FRIENDLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

1

Libelant and claimant's vessels were involved in a collision which has been adjudicated as one of mutual fault requiring the division of damages, although the fault of the libelant's vessel was gross and that of claimant's vessel less clear. Afran Transport Co. v. The Bergechief, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 170 F.Supp. 893, affirmed 2 Cir., 274 F.2d 469. Libelant's vessel sustained the greater damage, so that on the stipulated amounts a balance was due libelant of $69,203. It therefore sought interest to run prior to the final decree,[1] but Judge Dimock declined to award any interest prior to its entry, holding as authorities therefor The Wright, 2 Cir., 109 F.2d 699, and Canadian Aviator, Ltd. v. United States, 2 Cir., 187 F.2d 100, certiorari denied 342 U.S. 813, 72 S.Ct. 27, 96 L.Ed. 615, with a reference also to Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc. v. The Esso Camden, 2 Cir., 244 F.2d 198, 202, certiorari denied 355 U.S. 822, 78 S.Ct. 29, 2 L.Ed.2d 37.

2

Possibly Judge Dimock in his brief memorandum may have stated the rule too rigidly; in The Wright, supra, 2 Cir., 109 F.2d 699, we cited the usual rule that interest in admiralty was a matter of the court's discretion and stressed that it must be a legal discretion, rather than one merely at will. So normally the award of interest may await the court's judgment which fixes the amount due. But we would not exclude all discretion in the mutual fault collision case; thus if one vessel is grossly at fault the award of interest to the other may ameliorate somewhat the harsh American rule that division of damages must be equal without reference to the degree of fault. Here under the circumstances shown in our opinion in Afran Transport Co. v. The Bergechief, supra, 2 Cir., 274 F.2d 469, we think denial of pre-decree interest was right.

3

Affirmed.

Notes:

1

Apparently libelant seeks interest only from the time it paid its repair bills, not from the date of the collision