*2 SWAN, Before MEDINA and original Isbrandtsen’s on libel was Judges. September 14, allege It did not a claim for the charter hire of the SS. Judge. MEDINA, Circuit allege Heights, Columbia it did cargo This is of the four cases ar- the last had been for car- due gued before us on and November from ried and that bills filing opinions charges paid. we are all four for these had been fur- It together. problems cases in each ther claim- that the arise, part, ing payments freight of the four cases at least had been excessive, parties arbitrarily $31,- had circumstance that “in unrelated connection certain various claims vis-a-vis with char- have parties, ter not involved in this suit” one another. and judgment prayed for in that amount. During from 1948 to libel This for failure dismissed sup- carried foodstuffs Isbrandtsen set forth facts sufficient constitute a plies for appeared since it face of freight shipments bills these were freight charges libel they presented. paid as were The Gen- shipments paid, 1948-1951 had been Accounting however, Office, eral deter- Judge Weinfeld, judge the same who upon post-audit the United mined appealed from, now made the order overcharged on had been States groups allegation govern- treated the items, amounting respectively withholding surplusage. ment’s mere $10,037.49. $21,027.83 and granted. to amend Leave August 11, 1952, Isbrandtsen char- On filed on Heights The amended to the SS. Columbia tered the no Transportation made reference to Military Service of Sea for the 1948-1951 months; for six allege charter of April was extended until Heights MSTS lated claim SS. Columbia to the April 14, redelivery set-off, simply of the vessel because the freight how or were 1954. The libel did withheld and the claim for charges payable undisputed. when hire, for charter was said to became Thus *3 merely States we said: United the that pay $31,065.32 failed the of to subject- “In the case at bar the government’s The be due. matter of the libel was the exceptive allegations the indicated that debt of the United Grace States to withholdings 16, 1953 occurred on out of the 1954-1955 6, 1953, that and asserted and October relationship and there is no the because suit time-barred whatever between this claim assert- brought year two limitation within the ed in the libel claim asserted Admiralty Act, 46 Section 5 of Suits in by government. No amount U.S.C.A. 745. § pleading can alter the fact that this case is there no affirmative de- that In manner as much same by fense raised adopted by East- in the attempt rather interpose an a set- port case, Eastport S.S. off by which is barred established 795, Corp., Cir., District 2 255 F.2d admiralty procedure.” Judge here, perhaps in effort sus an dis tain some regarded libelant’s pierce This and similar efforts to allegations of the unequivocal allegations clear char claim for additional stated a a claim or cause of action in a libel or $31,065.32,and ter hire in the amount complaint, and characterize claim or alleging claims treated as in it effect wrongful cause of action as one for with withheld, money wrongfully held holding moneys by claim matured and the Statute each only can injustice. result in confusion and began dates run on the Limitations practice procedure Rules of relating Comptroller “un when General defenses, counterclaims and other mat equivocally asserted his to with intent purpose ters are formulated for the although money.” Accordingly, hold the simplifying justice the administration of the libel made no reference whatever to making expeditious, it more more withholdings, $21,- was held that it certain and more effective. These rules claim was barred because of the accomplish purpose plead cannot their if 16, was withheld on March ings clear on their face are construed to might 1953, proceed but that action something quite mean different from as to the withheld October plainly is what therein. as within two handling years fictional thereafter. This libel must be further case we think constitutes error re amended, however, impossible as it quiring of the fur the remand case for allegations determine from the proceedings. ther amended libel before us when the sought In be recovered became due and Cir., by payable, 255 F.2d we have 2 reason of the terms of the determining party, already decided in charter or otherwise. is well admiralty whether or not a set-off settled or the libel must facts arises out of the same counterclaim sufficient to indicate that the claim sued libel, upon by set forth in year was not time-barred the two liberty is not at to look behind of limitations set forth in Section stating allegations Admiralty Act, a claim 5 of the Suits 46 U.S. unpaid balance of 745. United C.A. § sought Emergency Corp. “real” claim to Board Fleet and find v. Rosen by berg pleaded Co., was for Brothers & U.S. by 531; Corporation reason of unre- 72 L.Ed. S.Ct. Royal Exchange v. United Assurance States, Cir., 75 F.2d remanded. Reversed and Judge (concur-
WATERMAN, Circuit my sepa- See in the concur result. Line, rate
Inc., v. United
815, 816. *4 UNION, & STEAMFITTERS
PLUMBERS 598,Appellant, NO. LOCAL DILLION, Appellee.
C.W.
No. Court Circuit. Ninth
May