Glover v. United States

109 F. Supp. 701, 1952 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2172
District Court, S.D. New York·Decided October 2, 1952·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

RYAN, District Judge.

Respondent moves to dismiss this action-brought under the Suits in Admiralty Act, 46 U.S.C.A. § 741 et seq., on the ground that libelant failed to comply with the service requirements of that statute.

This section requires that “libelant shall forthwith serve a copy of his libel on the United States attorney for such district (the district in which the libel is brought) and mail a copy thereof by registered mail to the Attorney General of the United States * * *.” 46 U.S.C.A. § 742.

Libelant’s proctor in this suit, brought in this district, mistakenly mailed a copy of the libel to the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, instead of to the Attorney General. This error was not rectified until the respondent had filed this motion — ten months later.

In a suit such as this where respondent has waived its sovereign immunity, the formal requirements of the statute must be strictly complied with. Marich v. United States, D. C., 84 F.Supp. 829.

Libelant’s failure to “forthwith” serve a copy of the libel on the Attorney General requires us to grant respondent’s motion. California Casualty Indemnity Exchange v. United States, D. C., 74 F. Supp. 404.

Motion granted.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Glover v. United States, 109 F. Supp. 701, 1952 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2172 (S.D.N.Y. 1952).

109 F. Supp. 701 (Glover v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Libby v. United States
657 F. Supp. 1251 (M.D. Florida, 1987)
Brown v. United States
403 F. Supp. 472 (C.D. California, 1975)
James Battaglia, Libelant-Appellant v. United States
303 F.2d 683 (Second Circuit, 1962)
CITY OF NEW YORK v. McALLISTER BROTHERS, INC.
278 F.2d 708 (Second Circuit, 1960)
City of New York v. McAllister Bros.
278 F.2d 708 (Second Circuit, 1960)