Lancaster v. Casey

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Lancaster v. Casey

138 S.E.2d 388, 110 Ga. App. 278, 1964 Ga. App. LEXIS 598

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 21, 1964

Docket40911

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 138 S.E.2d 388 (Lancaster v. Casey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lancaster v. Casey, 138 S.E.2d 388, 110 Ga. App. 278, 1964 Ga. App. LEXIS 598 (Ga. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Eberhardt, Judge.

Defendant’s attack on the subject matter jurisdiction of the superior court in this case is made under 28 USCA § 1388, which provides in part: “The District Courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the Courts of the States, of: (1) Any civil case of Admiralty or Maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are entitled.” Plaintiff relies on the “saving to suitors” clause to sustain State court jurisdiction.

We view the proposition as settled by Walter v. Kierstead, 74 Ga. 18. At the time of this 1884 decision, the “saving to suitors” clause was “saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy.” That provision was substantially the same as the present one, only narrower in its implications. Walter involved an attachment case arising out of damage to plaintiff’s dredge allegedly caused by defendant’s barque. The jurisdictional attack was the same as that advanced here. The court held at page 24 that “The intention of the statute was to confer exclusive admiralty and maritime jurisdiction upon the [Federal] district courts, at the same time leaving to the suitor his option of seeking redress at common law.”

In personam suits, as distinguished from the in rem suits common to admiralty, clearly fall within the “other remedies” mentioned in the statute. See 59 ALR 504.

The jurisdiction of the subject matter is concurrent and the *280 forum is to be selected at the option of the plaintiff. The plea to the jurisdiction was improperly sustained.

Judgment reversed.

Bell, P. J., and Jordan, J., concur.

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

Eberhardt, Judge.

Defendant’s attack on the subject matter jurisdiction of the superior court in this case is made under 28 USCA § 1388, which provides in part: “The District Courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the Courts of the States, of: (1) Any civil case of Admiralty or Maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are entitled.” Plaintiff relies on the “saving to suitors” clause to sustain State court jurisdiction.

We view the proposition as settled by Walter v. Kierstead, 74 Ga. 18. At the time of this 1884 decision, the “saving to suitors” clause was “saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy.” That provision was substantially the same as the present one, only narrower in its implications. Walter involved an attachment case arising out of damage to plaintiff’s dredge allegedly caused by defendant’s barque. The jurisdictional attack was the same as that advanced here. The court held at page 24 that “The intention of the statute was to confer exclusive admiralty and maritime jurisdiction upon the [Federal] district courts, at the same time leaving to the suitor his option of seeking redress at common law.”

In personam suits, as distinguished from the in rem suits common to admiralty, clearly fall within the “other remedies” mentioned in the statute. See 59 ALR 504.

The jurisdiction of the subject matter is concurrent and the *280 forum is to be selected at the option of the plaintiff. The plea to the jurisdiction was improperly sustained.

Judgment reversed.

Bell, P. J., and Jordan, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 S.E.2d 388, 110 Ga. App. 278, 1964 Ga. App. LEXIS 598, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lancaster-v-casey-gactapp-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack