Associated Metals & Minerals Corp. v. Ss Portoria, Her Engines, Etc., Industriale Maritima S.P.A., 484 F.2d 460 (5th Cir. 1973). · Go Syfert
Search
Associated Metals & Minerals Corp. v. Ss Portoria, Her Engines, Etc., Industriale Maritima S.P.A., 484 F.2d 460 (5th Cir. 1973). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
39 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: QT Trading, L.P. v. M/V Saga Morus (ca5, 2011-05-11)
Treatment trajectory · 1975 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1975 2000 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 22 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) QT Trading, L.P. v. M/V Saga Morus
5th Cir. · 2011 · confidence medium
Metals & Minerals Corp. v. SS PORTORIA 484 F.2d 460, 462 (5th Cir. 1973)). 1.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Thyssen Steel Company v. M/v Kavo Yerakas, Etc.
5th Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
Co. v. M/V GLORIA 767 F.2d 229, 234 (5th Cir.1985); Associated Metals & Minerals Corp. v. SS PORTORIA 484 F.2d 460, 462 (5th Cir.1973).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Thyssen Steel Co. v. M/V Kavo Yerakas
5th Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
Co. v. M/V GLORIA, 767 F.2d 229, 234 (5th Cir.1985); Associated Metals & Minerals Corp. v. SS PORTORIA, 484 F.2d 460, 462 (5th Cir.1973).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Armco Chile Prodein, S.A. v. The M/V Norlandia
M.D. Fla. · 1995 · confidence medium
PORTORIA 484 F.2d 460, 462 (5th Cir. 1973). 2 COGSA provides that the “term ‘carrier’ includes the owner or charterer who enters into a contract of carriage with a shipper.” 46 U.S.C.App. § 1301(a).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) J. Gerber & Co., Inc. v. M/V INAGUA TANIA
S.D. Tex. · 1992 · confidence medium
Co. v. M/V Gloria, 767 F.2d 229, 236 (5th Cir.1985); Associated Metals & Minerals Corp. v. S/S Portoria, 484 F.2d 460, 462 (5th Cir.1973); In re: Lloyd’s Leasing Ltd., 764 F.Supp. 1114, 1140 (S.D.Tex.1990) (no COGSA liability when party does not issue bills of lading or enter into carriage contracts); Trade Arbed, Inc. v. S/S Ellispontos, 482 F.Supp. 991, 994 (S.D.Tex.1980).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In Re Lloyd's Leasing Ltd.
S.D. Tex. · 1990 · confidence medium
PORTORIA, 484 F.2d 460, 462 (5th Cir.1973); 46 U.S.C.App. § 1301(a).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Pillsbury Co. v. Midland Enterprises, Inc.
E.D. La. · 1989 · confidence medium
Associated Metals & Minerals Corp. v. S/S Portoria, 484 F.2d 460, 461-62 (5th Cir.1973).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Republic Marine, Inc., in Personam, M/v C.R. Clements, in Rem, Defendants- United States of America v. Conticarriers and Terminals, Inc., in Personam, and Barge Cct-124, in Rem
7th Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
Cactus Pipe and Supply Co. v. M/V Montmartre, 756 F.2d 1103, 1107-11 (5th Cir.1985) (holding that such a waiver occurred); Pacific Employers Insurance Co. v. M/V Gloria, 767 F.2d 229, 234 (5th Cir.1985) (implicitly recognizing the possibility of such a waiver but holding that it had not occurred); Associated Metals and Minerals Corp. v. SS Portoria, 484 F.2d 460, 461-62 (5th Cir.1973) (same).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Lana Mora, Inc. v. S.S. Woermann Ulanga
S.D.N.Y. · 1987 · confidence medium
Sea Star, 461 F.2d 1009 , 1015 (2d Cir.1972); Associated Metals & Minerals Corp. v. SS Portoria, 484 F.2d 460, 462 (5th Cir.1973); Tube Products, 334 F.Supp. at 1041-42 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Republic Marine, Inc.
7th Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
Cactus Pipe and Supply Co. v. M/V Montmartre, 756 F.2d 1103, 1107-11 (5th Cir.1985) (holding that such a waiver occurred); Pacific Employers Insurance Co. v. M/V Gloria, 767 F.2d 229, 234 (5th Cir.1985) (implicitly recognizing the possibility of such a waiver but holding that it had not occurred); Associated Metals and Minerals Corp. v. SS Portoria, 484 F.2d 460, 461-62 (5th Cir. 1973) (same).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Transorient Navigators Co. v. M/S Southwind
5th Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
See Pacific Employers Insurance Co. v. M/V Gloria, 767 F.2d 229, 234 (5th Cir.1985) (district court erred in entering judgment against vessel in rem where no in rem process was issued, the vessel was not arrested, no answer was filed on the vessel’s behalf, and the vessel owner did not waive attachment); Associated Metals & Minerals Corp. v. SS Portoria, 484 F.2d 460, 461-62 (5th Cir.1973) (same). 4 3.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Transorient Navigators Company, S.A., Cross-Appellant v. M/s Southwind, Her Engines, Tackle, Apparel, Etc., in Rem and Westwind Africa Line, Ltd., Defendants-Third Party Cross-Appellees v. M/v Astros, in Rem and Transorient Navigators Co., S.A. In Personam, Third-Party Cross-Appellants. Flour Mills of Nigeria, Ltd. v. M/v Astros, in Rem and Transorient Navigators Co., S.A. In Personam, Cross-Appellants v. Westwind Africa Line, Ltd., and the M/s Southwind, Her Engines, Tackle, Apparel, Etc., in Rem, Appellant-Cross Westwind Africa Line, Ltd v. The United States of America and the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, New Orleans District
3rd Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
See Pacific Employers Insurance Co. v. M/V Gloria, 767 F.2d 229, 234 (5th Cir.1985) (district court erred in entering judgment against vessel in rem where no in rem process was issued, the vessel was not arrested, no answer was filed on the vessel's behalf, and the vessel owner did not waive attachment); Associated Metals & Minerals Corp. v. SS Portoria, 484 F.2d 460, 461-62 (5th Cir.1973) (same). 4 20 3.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Pacific Employers Insurance Company v. The M/v Gloria, Etc., Aquarius, Ltd., Defendants-Third Party v. Greenwich Marine, Inc., Third Party
3rd Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
Cactus Pipe & Supply Co., Inc. v. M/V MONTMARTRE, 756 F.2d 1103 (5th Cir.1985); Associated Metals & Minerals Corp. v. SS PORTORIA, 484 F.2d 460, 461-62 (5th Cir. 1973); Compagnie De Navigation Fraissinet & Cyprien Fabre, S.A. v. Mondial United Corp., 316 F.2d 163 , 168 n. 2 (5th Cir.1963).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In the Matter of Intercontinental Properties Management, S. A., as Owner of the Motor Vessel Mimi, for Exoneration From or Limitation of Liability. International Minerals and Chemicals Corp., Strolee of California, Rota Agro, S. A., World Wide Air Marine Freight Forwarders, Inc., Roper Sales Corporation Hasman & Baxt, Inc., Jesus Alberto Roman Pernia, Venequelan Supply, S. A., Rony Export Co. Inc., Sun Insurance Company of New York Inc., Calvert Fire Insurance Company, Amerven, Inc., Northwestern National Insurance Company, Industrias Electronicas Sharp De Venezuela, Avelax, C. A., Pronto Overseas, Inc., Central Madeirense, C. A., Anchor Hocking Corp., C. A. v. Sequros Caracas, 3m Venezuela, C. A. v. Intercontinental Properties Management, S. A., in the Matter of Intercontinental Properties Management, S. A., as Owner of the Motor Vessel Mimi, for Exoneration From or Limitation of Liability. International Minerals and Chemicals Corp. v. Intercontinental Properties Management, S. A., All-Caribbean Inc. And High Watch Shipping Company, Limited
4th Cir. · 1979 · confidence medium
Associated Metals & Minerals Corp. v. S. S. Portoria, 484 F.2d 460, 462 (5th Cir. 1973); See Yeramex International v. S. S. Tendo, 595 F.2d 943 (4th Cir. 1979).
cited Cited as authority (rule) International Minerals & Chemicals Corp. v. Intercontinental Properties Management, S. A.
4th Cir. · 1979 · confidence medium
Associated Metals & Minerals Corp. v. S. S. Portoria, 484 F.2d 460, 462 (5th Cir. 1973); see Yeramex International v. S. S. Tendo, 595 F.2d 943 (4th Cir. 1979).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Coastal States Trading, Inc. v. Zenith Navigation S. A.
S.D.N.Y. · 1977 · confidence medium
Associated Metals & Minerals Corporation v. S. S. Portoria, 484 F.2d 460, 462 (5th Cir. 1973); Demsey & Associates v. S. S. Sea Star, 461 F.2d 1009 , 1015 (2d Cir. 1972); International Selling Corporation v. Aiden Shipping Company Ltd., 1972 A.M.C. 669 , 672 (S.D.N.Y.1972); Tube Products of India v. S. S. Rio Grande, 334 F.Supp. 1039, 1041 (S.D.N.Y.1971); United Nations Childrens Fund v. S. S. Nordstern, 251 F.Supp. 833, 838 (S.D.N.Y.1965).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Fathom Expeditions, Inc. v. M/T GAVRION
M.D. Fla. · 1975 · confidence medium
Portoria, 484 F.2d 460, 461-462 (5th Cir. 1973).
discussed Cited "see" Cactus Pipe & Supply Co. v. M/V Montmartre (2×)
5th Cir. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See Associated Metals & Minerals Corp. v. SS PORTORIA, 484 F.2d 460, 462 , 1973 A.M.C. 2095, 2096-97 (5th Cir.1973).
discussed Cited "see" Cactus Pipe & Supply Co., Inc., Cross-Appellee v. M/v Montmartre, Her Engines, Tackle, Etc., Orient Leasing Co., Ltd., Cross v. Corinth Pipeworks, S.A., Cross Cross-Appellant (2×)
5th Cir. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See Associated Metals & Minerals Corp. v. SS PORTORIA, 484 F.2d 460, 462 , 1973 A.M.C. 2095, 2096-97 (5th Cir.1973).
cited Cited "see" Cardinal Shipping Corporation, Cross v. M/s Seisho Maru, Her Engines, Tackle, Etc., Aizawa Kaiun K.K., Claimant-Defendant Cross-Appellant. The Government of the Republic of Indonesia and Bandan Urusan Logistik, Cross v. M/v Glafkos, Her Engines, Tackle, Apparel, Furniture, Etc., in Rem, Glafkos Shipping Co., Ltd., Cross
5th Cir. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See Associated Metals & Minerals v. SS Portoria, 484 F.2d 460, 462 (5th Cir.1973).
cited Cited "see" Cardinal Shipping Corp. v. M/S Seisho Maru
5th Cir. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See Associated Metals & Minerals v. SS Portoria, 484 F.2d 460, 462 (5th Cir.1973).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Travelers Indemnity Co. v. SS Polarland
S.D.N.Y. · 1976 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Associated Metals & Minerals Corp. v. SS Portoria, 484 F.2d 460 (5th Cir. 1973); Demsey & Associates v. S.S.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
ASSOCIATED METALS & MINERALS CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
SS PORTORIA, Her Engines, Etc., Et Al., Defendants, Industriale Maritima S.P.A., Defendant-Appellant
73-2332.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Sep 20, 1973.
484 F.2d 460
Kenneth D. Kuykendall, Charles D. Kennedy, Houston, Tex., for Industríale Marítima., Frank Catón, Houston, Tex., for Cob-elfret Lines., Ralph M. Sharpe, Jr., Houston, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
Brown, Dyer, Simpson.
Cited by 24 opinions  |  Published
DYER, Circuit Judge:

This appeal raises two questions: (1) whether an in rem judgment was properly entered against the SS PORTO-RIA even though the vessel was not arrested; and (2) whether the vessel owner, Industríale Marítima S.P.A., is subject to an in personam judgment as a carrier because the voyage sub-charterer of the vessel issued a bill of lading subscribed “signed as per authority of the Master.” Because the district court erroneously resolved both these questions in the affirmative in granting judgment against the vessel and against the owner, we reverse.

The PORTORIA, owned by Industrí-ale, transported a cargo of wire rod from Antwerp, Belgium to Houston, Texas in February and March 1968. The contract of carriage was entered into between Associated Metals & Minerals Corp., the owner of the cargo, and Cobelfret Lines, the voyage sub-charterer from the time charterer, Skaarup Shipping Corporation. Cobelfret issued a bill of lading containing the clause “signed as per authority of the Master.” Because of alleged rust damage to the cargo, Associated brought this action which resulted in an in rem judgment against the vessel, and an in personam judgment against the owner and the voyage charterer. [1]

It is undisputed that no process in rem was issued, the PORTORIA was not arrested, and the owner did not waive attachment of the vessel. Thus it is clear that the district court erred in[*462] entering an in rem judgment against the ship. As we said in Dow Chemical Co. v. Barge UM-23-B, 5 Cir. 1970, 424 P. 2d 307, 311:

[N]o process in rem ever issued against the barge and it was not arrested. Attachment subjecting the res to the jurisdiction of the court is a prerequisite to a finding of in rem liability. Lewis v. Maritime Overseas Corporation, D.Or.1958, 163 F.Supp. 453; 1 Benedict on Admiralty § 11 at p. 20; see Ex Parte Republic of Peru, 1943, 318 U.S. 578, at 587, 63 S.Ct. 793, 87 L.Ed. 1014; The Resolute, 1897, 168 U.S. 437, at 439, 18 S.Ct. 112, 42 L.Ed. 533.

Turning now to the in personam liability of the owner, Industríale contends that since the cargo owner’s cause of action was based on the Carriage of Goods by Seas Act (COGSA), 46 U.S.C. § 1300 et seq., there could be in person-am liability only if the owner was a carrier. [2] Relying on a failure of proof by the cargo owner that the vessel owner granted authority to the voyage charterer to sign the bill of lading on its behalf, Industríale asserts that there was no contract between it and Associated, and that the district court erred in entering an- in personam judgment against it. We agree.

In the recent Second Circuit case of Demsey & Associates v. SS SEA STAR, 2 Cir. 1972, 461 F.2d 1009, even though the words “for the Master” appeared on the bill of lading signed by the agent of the voyage charterer, the court concluded that “[bjecause, however, Atlantic [the vessel owner] did not authorize World Bulk’s agent [the voyage charterer] to issue the bills of lading, Atlantic is not liable in personam.” Id. at 1015. It would seem self-evident that it was cargo’s burden to show that the owner was a party to the contract between cargo and the voyage charterer and its failure so to do establishes that cargo never relied upon the owner to perform the contract of carriage, but relied exclusively upon the voyage charterer to insure the proper carriage of goods. See International Selling Corporation v. Aiden Shipping Company, Ltd, S.D.N.Y.1972, 1972 A.M.C. 669; Tube Products of India v. SS RIO GRANDE, S.D.N.Y.1971, 334 F.Supp. 1039; United Nations Children’s Fund v. SS NORDSTERN, S.D.N.Y.1965, 251 F.Supp. 833; Scrutton on Charterparties and Bills of Lading (17th ed. 1964) p. 51. [3]

Because of our disposition of the case we do not reach the other points raised by cargo. The judgment of the district court is reversed and judgment is rendered in favor of the SS PORTORIA, her engines etc., and Industríale Maríti-ma S.P.A.

Reversed and rendered.

1

. Cobelfret Lines, the voyage charterer, did not appeal.

2

. Section 1301(a) of COGSA defines a carrier as “the owner or the charterer who enters into a contract of carriage with a shipper.”

3

. Cargo’s contention that owner’s counsel made a judicial admission of liability and cargo’s alternative argument premised on tort liability of the owner are without merit.