From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hiroshi Muramato v. Blidberg Rothchild Co.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Oct 23, 1950
94 F. Supp. 131 (S.D.N.Y. 1950)

Opinion

Adm. No. 159-188.

October 23, 1950.

William L. Standard, New York City, by Malcolm B. Rosow, New York City, for libelant.

Dougherty, Ryan Mahoney, New York City, for respondent.


Exceptions to libel.

The suit is for damages resulting from injuries alleged to have been sustained by the libelant while employed as a seaman aboard the S.S. Tomas Guardia on or about November 1, 1945, and for maintenance and cure. At the time the Guardia was owned by the United States and managed by respondent, Blidberg Rothchild Co., Inc. as general agents under a General Agency contract similar to the contract in Cosmopolitan Shipping Co., Inc. v. McAllister, 337 U.S. 783, 69 S.Ct. 1317, 93 L.Ed. 1692, 1949 A.M.C. 1031.

The respondent was not the employer of the seaman and may not be held liable for damages resulting from the negligence of the master or crew. Cosmopolitan Shipping Co. Inc. v. McAllister, supra; Fink v. Shepard S.S. Co., 337 U.S. 810, 69 S.Ct. 1330, 93 L.Ed. 1709, 1949 A.M.C. 1045.

Libelant opposes respondent's motion excepting to the libel on the ground that a prior denial of a motion for summary judgment made by defendant in a state action between the same parties involving the same facts but based upon a different legal theory, constitutes res adjudicata and bars the relief now sought by respondent.

The denial of summary judgment is not a final judgment. The case still stands for regular trial. Jones v. St. Paul Fire Marine Insurance Co., 5 Cir., 108 F.2d 123, 125; Standard Accident Insurance Co. v. Marks, 233 App. Div. 466, 253 N.Y.S. 342.

Only a final judgment upon the merits prevents further contest upon the same issue between the same parties. Brown v. Cleveland Trust Co., 233 N.Y. 399, 405, 135 N.E. 829.

The exceptions to the libel are sustained and the libel is dismissed. Settle order on notice.


Summaries of

Hiroshi Muramato v. Blidberg Rothchild Co.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Oct 23, 1950
94 F. Supp. 131 (S.D.N.Y. 1950)
Case details for

Hiroshi Muramato v. Blidberg Rothchild Co.

Case Details

Full title:HIROSHI MURAMATO v. BLIDBERG ROTHCHILD CO., Inc

Court:United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Oct 23, 1950

Citations

94 F. Supp. 131 (S.D.N.Y. 1950)

Citing Cases

F. T. Development Co. v. Morris

The refusal of a summary judgment is interlocutory in character and is not a final judgment, because the case…

Bell v. Davis

Appellees have moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the judgment is interlocutory and not…