Seeley v. Waterman Steamship Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Seeley v. Waterman Steamship Corp.

274 A.D. 934, 83 N.Y.S.2d 502, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4159

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 8, 1948

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 274 A.D. 934 (Seeley v. Waterman Steamship Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Seeley v. Waterman Steamship Corp., 274 A.D. 934, 83 N.Y.S.2d 502, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4159 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, brought by a seaman under the Jones Act (Merchant Marine Act, 1920, § 33; U. S. Code, tit. 46, § 688), order denying appellant’s motion to dismiss the complaint and to vacate the alleged service of summons for lack of jurisdiction of the defendant’s person and the subject of the action, reversed on the law and the facts, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with $10 costs. This action was instituted by a Massachusetts resident against an Alabama corporation doing business in New York, by reason of an accident which occurred on a vessel operated, managed and controlled by the corporation while it was in anchorage at Boston, Massachusetts. The record fails to show that service of the summons had been made in accordance with the provisions of section 229' of the Civil Practice Act, nor does it show any special circumstances that require or warrant the retention of jurisdiction of this case in the exercise of sound discretion, particularly since the respondent has already litigated in an admiralty suit a claim based upon the same accident. (Cf. Murnan v. Wabash Railway Co., 246 N. Y. 244; 222 App. Div. 833-834.) Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Sneed, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, brought by a seaman under the Jones Act (Merchant Marine Act, 1920, § 33; U. S. Code, tit. 46, § 688), order denying appellant’s motion to dismiss the complaint and to vacate the alleged service of summons for lack of jurisdiction of the defendant’s person and the subject of the action, reversed on the law and the facts, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with $10 costs. This action was instituted by a Massachusetts resident against an Alabama corporation doing business in New York, by reason of an accident which occurred on a vessel operated, managed and controlled by the corporation while it was in anchorage at Boston, Massachusetts. The record fails to show that service of the summons had been made in accordance with the provisions of section 229' of the Civil Practice Act, nor does it show any special circumstances that require or warrant the retention of jurisdiction of this case in the exercise of sound discretion, particularly since the respondent has already litigated in an admiralty suit a claim based upon the same accident. (Cf. Murnan v. Wabash Railway Co., 246 N. Y. 244; 222 App. Div. 833-834.) Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Sneed, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

274 A.D. 934, 83 N.Y.S.2d 502, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seeley-v-waterman-steamship-corp-nyappdiv-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack