UNITED STATES
v.
COMMONWEALTH AND DOMINION LINE, LTD.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court held that the United States is not entitled to recover interest on damages in an admiralty collision case when sued under a special statute that authorizes judgment "upon the same principles and measures of liability as in like cases in admiralty between private parties," because the statutory language must be read strictly to reflect Congress's intent to limit the sovereign's liability, and the filing of a cross-libel by the United States does not expand the scope of damages beyond what the statute permits.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Holmes delivered'the opinion of the Court.
This is a libel in admiralty against the United States as owner of the steam collier Proteus to recover damages caused by á collision .with the libellant’s vessel Port Phillip. The District Court and the Circuit' Court of Appeals agreed in finding that the Proteus alone was in' fault, but the Circuit Court of Appeals modified the decree against the United States by allowing interest on the damages found. 20 F. (2d) 729. A writ of certiorari was granted by this Court to review the decision as to interest, consideration of the question to await the decision of this Court in the case of Boston Sand and Gravel Co. v. United States, which now has been decided, ante, p. 41, and in which interest was denied.
Jurisdiction in Boston Sand and Gravel Co. v. United States was granted by a special act authorizing judgment “ for the amount of the legal damages sustained by reason of said collision, . . ' . upon the same principle and measure of liability with costs as in like cases in admiralty between private parties, with the same rights of-appeal.” It was held in view of the history of legislation that the words were to be taken strictly and that no interest could be allowed agáinst the United States. The present suit is based fipon the special Act of March 4, 1.923, c. 321; 42 Stat. 1796, where the language is substantially the same, except that it is further qualified; jurisdiction of the suit, is granted “ to the extent only of such damages suffered other than claims for the demurrage to [the Port Phillip] and to enter a judgment or decree for the amount of such damages and costs, if any, as shall be found to be due against the United States in favor of , the owner of the British steamer Port Phillip or against such owner in favor of the United States, upon the same principles and measures of liability as in like eases in admiralty between private parties and with the same rights of appeal.” The only ground of distinction favorable to the Port. Phillip is that in this case the United States filed a cross libel. It is urged that in view of that fact the principle of United States v. The Thekla, 266 U. S. 328, applies.
But the difference between the two cases is plain. In The Thekla the United States came into Court of its own motion as a libellant, and it was held that when the sovereign thus voluntarily brought itself within, the jurisdiction in a collision case it should be assumed to agree that justice should be done with regard to'the subject matter, and therefore that it might be held liable in damages if its vessel was in fault. The main question in the case was whether the United States could be held at all. When that point' was decided interest was allowed as generally it would be allowed against a private party, there being nothing to qualify the submission found to be implied. But in the present case the United States is brought into Court to. defend its property under a statute that marks the limits of the liability assumed. The cross libel is really an incident of the suit, contemplated by the very words of the special act which provide for a decree in favor of either party, and it would be absurd to say that if' the United States resorted to the usual instruments of defence the statute authorized what otherwise it did not allow.
Decree reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Wright. the Papoose. United States v. Petroleum Nav. Co., 109 F.2d 699 (2d Cir. 1940)…o award against the United States, even though the damages were divided (1 Cir., 7 F. 2d 278; cf. D.C. Mass., 16 F. 2d 643), for the claimant had filed no cross-libel. Thereafter the Court held in United States v. Commonwealth & Dominion Line, Ltd., 278 U.S. 427, 49 S.Ct. 183, 73 L.Ed. 439, reversing 2 Cir., 20 F. 2d 729, that the result would be the same even though the United States had filed a cross-libel; and distinguished The Thekla, supra, on the same ground, that there no statute had been needed to j…
-
Nat'l Bulk Carriers, Inc. v. United States, 183 F.2d 405 (2d Cir. 1950)…t a change of “course” within the rule, but was merely a change of “heading.” Cf. Clyde-Mallory Lines v. New York Cent. R. Co., 2 Cir., 83 F. 2d 158, 159; Commonwealth & Dominion Line v. United States, 2 Cir., 20 F. 2d 729, reversed on other grounds 278 U.S. 427, 49 S.Ct. 183, 73 L.Ed. 439. The cases relied upon, however, are winding channel cases, not applicable here. On the high seas, a change of heading of eight degrees has been held a change of course. Socony Vacuum Transp. Co. v. Gypsum Packet Co., 2 C…
-
United States v. S.S. Soya Atl., 330 F.2d 732 (4th Cir. 1964)…the Darby during all of the changes in the Soya Atlantic’s heading as she maneuvered to drop her pilot and thereafter. . Commonwealth & Dominion Line v. United States, 2 Cir., 20 F. 2d 729, 731, reversed on other grounds 278 U.S. 427, 49 S.Ct. 183, 73 L.Ed. 439; Skibs Aktieselskapet Orenor v. The Audrey, E.D. Va., 181 F.Supp. 697, affirmed Gratsos v. The Moisie Bay, 4 Cir., 287 F. 2d 706; Nicholas Eustathiou & Co. v. United States, E.D.Va., 178 F.Supp. 33. . Gratsos v. The Moisie Bay, 4 Cir., 287 F. 2d 70…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Norwegian Barque " Thekla, 266 U.S. 328 (U.S. 1924)
- Commonwealth & Dominion Line v. United States, 20 F.2d 729 (2d Cir. 1927)