Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
THE JOHN J. TIMMINS, 1926 — 14 F.2d 435 · caselaw · US
Tax
THE JOHN J. TIMMINS
14 F.2d 435·United States District Court for the Southern District of New York·1926
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
THE JOHN J. TIMMINS.
(District Court, S. D. New York.
March 10, 1926.)
Damages <@=67.
Libelant, who delayed commencement of suit for 5 years, 43 days, held not entitled to interest during such time on damages recovered.
In Admiralty. Libel by the International Elevating Company against the steam tug John J. Timmins; Edward M. Timmins, claimant, and others. On exceptions to commissioner’s report.
Exceptions sustained.
On exceptions to the commissioner’s report. Libelant’s cause of action arose on November 11,1916. The libel was not filed until January 27, 1922, although in December, 1916, the claimant of the Timmins agreed to appear and give security for his tug, if any suit was brought. Upon the trial on June 26, 1925, the District Court allowed libelant a decree, but in its opinion .was silent as to interest and costs. The commissioner, to whom the case was referred, allowed interest in full on the damages reported, upon the theory that, the court having considered the defense of laches and nevertheless found for the libelant, had inferentially sanctioned the allowance of interest on its damages, without any deduction on account of delay in instituting the proceedings. Exceptions to the commissioner’s report were concerned only with the interest on damages.
Harison & Hewitt, of New York City, for libelant.
Burlingham, Veeder, Masten & Fearey, of New York City (C. B. Manley O’Kelley, of New York City, of counsel), for claimant.
[MAJORITY — THACHER, District Judge]
THACHER, District Judge
(after stating the facts as above). The libelant having delayed the commencement of this suit for a period of 5 years and 43 days, this period should be excluded in computing interest upon damages allowed by the commissioner. Arpillao (C. C. A.) 270 F. 426, 429; James McWilliams, 240 F. 951, 153 C. C. A. 637.
To this extent the exceptions are sustained, and final decree may be entered accordingly.