American President Lines v. United States
| Decision Date | 25 September 1947 |
| Citation | 75 F. Supp. 110 |
| Parties | AMERICAN PRESIDENT LINES, Limited, v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Dow & Symmers, of New York City (William G. Symmers and John S. Stillman, both of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff.
John F. X. McGohey, U. S. Atty., of New York City, for this motion only (William H. Postner, of New York City, of counsel), for defendant.
This is a motion brought by the defendant, United States of America, for an order dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action and over the person of the defendant.
The complaint, filed on April 22, 1947, alleges that the action is brought under "paragraph 20 of section 24 of the Act of March 3, 1911, commonly called the Tucker Act, 36 Stat. 1093, as amended, U.S.C.A., Title 28, § 41(20), and is founded upon express contracts with the Government of the United States." The complaint further discloses that plaintiff owned, operated and controlled numerous steamships; that defendant, through its Navy Department, entered into contracts with the plaintiff, between June 1940 and September 1941, for the carriage or transportation of foodstuffs and supplies; that the transportation by plaintiff of said supplies was to be performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of Government standard form bills of lading (a copy of which is not annexed to the complaint, although alleged so to be); that plaintiff performed all its obligations under the contracts but that defendant, contrary to the terms, conditions and provisions of its contract and bills of lading, deducted and withheld part of the freight moneys due plaintiff. It is this sum thus deducted, which plaintiff seeks to recover in this action.
For the purpose of this motion, the defendant admits the facts alleged in the complaint.
Defendant contends that the cause of action alleged lies within the Suits in Admiralty Act, §§ 1-12, 46 U.S.C.A. §§ 741-752, and that said Act is plaintiff's exclusive remedy against the United States. It seems clear from Johnson v. U. S. Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp., 280 U. S. 320, 50 S.Ct. 118, 74 L.Ed. 451, that the Suits in Admiralty Act furnishes the exclusive remedy in Admiralty against the United States on all maritime causes of action arising out of the possession or operation of merchant vessels by the United States. The question presented here is whether the law is otherwise where the vessels concerned are not operated by the United States but where the cargo is owned by the United States and shipped on privately owned vessels and a cause of action arises in connection with such shipment. The court by its own search has not been able to locate a controlling case directly in point and counsel have furnished none. In the Johnson case, supra, the Supreme Court concluded that the remedies given by the Suits in Admiralty Act are exclusive in all cases where a libel might be filed under it.
Section 742 of the Suits in Admiralty Act provides:
"In cases where * * * if such cargo were privately owned and possessed, a proceeding in admiralty could be maintained at the time of the commencement of the action herein provided for, a libel in personam may be brought against the United States * * *".
As the court views the complaint in this action, it concludes that it is based upon a contract of affreightment and such being a "maritime contract" an action upon it is cognizable in courts of admiralty. Morewood v. Enequist, 23 How. 491, 64 U.S. 491, 16 L.Ed. 516.
While a reading...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Prudential Steamship Corporation v. United States
...U.S. 352, 356, 52 S.Ct. 162, 164, 76 L.Ed. 336. This gloss upon the statute was introduced by Judge Hulbert in American President Lines v. United States, D.C.N. Y., 75 F.Supp. 110. It was accepted by the district court in Alcoa Steamship Co. v. United States, D.C., 80 F.Supp. 158; but that ......
-
Ryan Stevedoring Co. v. United States
...cargo must be one "directly connected with the Government's ownership and operation of a vessel," citing American President Lines v. United States, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 75 F.Supp. 110, 112, which is in accord. The chief ground for a more extended view comes from the holding that the action against......
-
Louisville & NR Co. v. United States
...Alcoa S. S. Co., Inc. v. United States, D.C., 80 F.Supp. 158; Powell v. United States, D.C., 60 F.Supp. 433; American President Lines, Ltd. v. United States, D.C., 75 F. Supp. 110. The conclusion has been reached that the second ground of the motion of defendant to dismiss for lack of juris......
-
Lykes Bros. Steamship Co. v. United States
...308. In so holding we respectfully disagree with results reached by the District Court of the Second Circuit in American President Lines, Ltd. v. United States, 75 F.Supp. 110, States Marine Corp. of Delaware v. United States, D.C., 120 F.Supp. 585, and Prudential Steamship Corp. v. United ......