W. R. Grace & Co. v. United States

S.D. New York

W. R. Grace & Co. v. United States

53 F.2d 272, 1931 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1773

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedJune 25, 1931

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 53 F.2d 272 (W. R. Grace & Co. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

W. R. Grace & Co. v. United States, 53 F.2d 272, 1931 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1773 (S.D.N.Y. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

COXE, District Judge.

The Snug Harbor Case (Eastern Transp. Co. v. United States) 272 U. S. 675, 47 S. Ct. 289, 71 L. Ed. 472, holds squarely that suit may be maintained against the United States under the Suits in Admiralty Act (46 USCA §§ 741-752) even though the vessel involved is a worthless wreck and there is nothing to support liability in rem. It is therefore apparent that the present suit could have been prosecuted against the United States under the Suits in Admiralty Act; and, that being so, there is no basis for the present jurisdiction. It is no answer that when suit was ’originally commenced under the Suits in Admiralty Act it was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the res had disappeared. The Cape Fear(D. C.) 8 F.(2d)„80. That decision has now been shown to be erroneous, Eastern Transp. Co. v. United States, supra; and there is no escape from a dismissal, Johnson v. United States, 280 U. S. 320, 50 S. Ct. 118, 74 L. Ed. 451.

The motion to dismiss is granted.

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

COXE, District Judge.

The Snug Harbor Case (Eastern Transp. Co. v. United States) 272 U. S. 675, 47 S. Ct. 289, 71 L. Ed. 472, holds squarely that suit may be maintained against the United States under the Suits in Admiralty Act (46 USCA §§ 741-752) even though the vessel involved is a worthless wreck and there is nothing to support liability in rem. It is therefore apparent that the present suit could have been prosecuted against the United States under the Suits in Admiralty Act; and, that being so, there is no basis for the present jurisdiction. It is no answer that when suit was ’originally commenced under the Suits in Admiralty Act it was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the res had disappeared. The Cape Fear(D. C.) 8 F.(2d)„80. That decision has now been shown to be erroneous, Eastern Transp. Co. v. United States, supra; and there is no escape from a dismissal, Johnson v. United States, 280 U. S. 320, 50 S. Ct. 118, 74 L. Ed. 451.

The motion to dismiss is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 F.2d 272, 1931 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1773, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/w-r-grace-co-v-united-states-nysd-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack