Johnson v. United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation United States Shipping Board Merchant Fleet Corporation v. Lustgarten Federal Sugar Refining Co v. United States Royal Ins Co v. United States Shipping Board Merchant Fleet Corporation

Decision Date06 January 1930
Docket NumberNo. 123,No. 32,No. 56,No. 5,5,32,56,123
Citation74 L.Ed. 451,280 U.S. 320,50 S.Ct. 118
PartiesJOHNSON, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES SHIPPING BOARD EMERGENCY FLEET CORPORATION. UNITED STATES SHIPPING BOARD MERCHANT FLEET CORPORATION et al. v. LUSTGARTEN. FEDERAL SUGAR REFINING CO., Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES. ROYAL INS. CO., Limited, et al. v. UNITED STATES SHIPPING BOARD MERCHANT FLEET CORPORATION
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr. Silas B. Axtell, of New York City, for petitioner Johnson.

Mr. Oscar R. Houston, of New York City, for petitioner Federal Sugar Refining Co.

Mr. John C. Crawley, of New York City, for petitioners Royal Ins. Co. et al.

The Attorney General and Messrs. Chauncey G. Parker, of Washington, D. C., and Claude R. Branch, of Providence, R, I., for U. S. Shipping Board Merchant Fleet Corporation.

Mr. Myron Scott, of New York City, for petitioner in No. 5, pro hac vice, by special leave of court.

Mr. Silas B. Axtell, of New York City, for respondent Benjamin Lustgarten.

The Attorney General, for the United States.

[Argument of Counsel from page 321 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice BUTLER delivered the opinion of the Court.

No. 5.

August 1, 1920, petitioner was an unemployed seaman. The steamship Jacksonville, then lying in the port of Jacksonville, Florida, was a merchant vessel owned by the United States and operated for it by the Fleet Corporation. On that day, petitioner went aboard to seek employment, and, when returning to the shore, fell from the gangplank and suffered serious injuries. This is an action at law, brought by him in April, 1923, against the Fleet Corporation in the Supreme Court of New York to recover damages for such injuries. The complaint alleges that, due to the negligence of the defendant's officers and employees, the gangplank was insecure, and that plaintiff's injuries were caused thereby. The defendant removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Its answer denies the negligence charged in the complaint and alleges that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence; that, whatever his rights, plaintiff's remedy is provided exclusively by the Suits in Admiralty Act, approved March 9, 1920, 41 Stat. 525 (46 USCA § 741 et seq.), and that his claim is barred because, as appears by the complaint, the action was not commenced within the two years prescribed by that act. The District Court submitted the case to a jury, and charged that, if guilty of contributory negligence, plaintiff could not recover. There was a verdict for defendant, and the judgment thereon was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. 24 F. (2d) 963.

No. 32.

March 6, 1926, the steamship Coelleda was a merchant vessel owned by the United States and operated for it by the Navigation Company as agent, pursuant to an agreement made by the United States, acting through the Shipping Board represented by the Fleet Corporation. Merchant Marine Act 1920, §§ 12, 35, 41 Stat. 993, 1007 (46 USCA §§ 871, 886). Respondent was a seaman employed thereon. This is an action at law, brought by him in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Fleet Corporation and the Navigation Company, to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been sustained by him while in that service. The complaint alleges two causes of action: (1) That, due to the negligent failure of defendants to furnish him a safe place in which to work, plaintiff was severely injured; and (2) that, being injured and in need of medical treatment and rent, he was refused such treatment by the master and officers of the ship, and was compelled to continue to work. The answer of each defendant denies the negligence and wrongful acts charged in the complaint, and alleges that, whatever his rights, plaintiff's remedy is provided exclusively by the Suits in Admiralty Act, and that therefore this action cannot be maintained. The trial court dismissed the first cause of action, and, after denying defendants' motion that a verdict in their favor be directed, submitted the second to a jury. There was a verdict for plaintiff, and the judgment entered thereon was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. 28 F.(2d) 1014.

No. 56.

The United States owned, and, through the Shipping Board and West India Steamship Company as agent, operated, the merchant vessel Cerosco. In February, 1920, at Sagua La Grande, Cuba, sugar was delivered to the vessel for transportation to New York and delivery there in accordance with bills of lading issued by the master. The vessel arrived in New York in the month following, but because some of the sugar was lost and some was damaged on the voyage, she failed to make delivery as agreed. January 5, 1924, this action was brought by petitioner in the District Court for the Southern District of New York against the United States, under the Tucker Act-Judicial Code, § 24(20), 28 USCA § 41(20)-to recover damages, less than $10,000, for failure to perform the contracts evidenced by the bills of lading. The trial court gave judgment for the defendant. The Circuit Court of Appeals, being of opinion that the limitations perscribed by the Suits in Admiralty Act governed, held that the action was too late and affirmed the judgment. 30 F.(2d) 254.

No. 123.

The steamship Eastern Glade was a merchant vessel owned by the United States and operated by the Fleet Corporation. Merchandise was delivered to the vessel at New York for transportation to various destinations and delivery upon the orders of the consignees. Two actions, one by underwriters and the other by owners, were brought against the Fleet Corporation in the Supreme Court of New York to recover for loss and damage of cargo alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant. The cause es of action accrued in December, 1922. The suits were not commenced until September 7, 1928, long after the expiration of the period of limitations fixed by the Suits in Admiralty Act, but within the six years allowed by the New York statute. Section 48, New York Civil Practice Act. Defendant removed the suits to the District Court for the Southern District of New York where they were consolidated. The case was tried by the court without a jury upon the complaints and a stipulation which provided that defendant should be deemed by appropriate pleadings to have raised the objection that the Suits in Admiralty Act affords an exclusive remedy for all causes of action for which a libel in admiralty may be filed thereunder. The court held that the remedy provided by the act is exclusive and dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction. 30 F.(2d) 946. Plaintiff appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. We granted this writ before the determination of the case in that court.

In each of these cases there is involved the question whether the Suits in Admiralty Act excludes the remedy invoked by plaintiff.

Section 1, Suits in Admiralty Act (46 USCA § 741), in view...

To continue reading

Request your trial
112 cases
  • Interstate Commerce Commission v. Nav Co
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • January 9, 1933
    ...8 See Minnesota v. Hitchcock, 185 U.S. 373, 387, 388, 22 S.Ct. 650, 46 L.Ed. 954; Johnson v. United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation, 280 U.S. 320, 326, 327, 50 S.Ct. 118, 74 L.Ed. 451. 9 Construction of Railroad Lines in Eastern Oregon, 111 I.C.C. 10 The court below found:......
  • Amell v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • May 16, 1966
    ...of law * * *.' 276 U.S., at 214, 48 S.Ct., at 258. This reservation was laid at rest in Johnson v. United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp., 280 U.S. 320, 50 S.Ct. 118, 74 L.Ed. 451. There four cases were consolidated: two involved seamen's allegations of negligence; the third all......
  • United States v. Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • December 27, 1960
    ...Fleet Corp. v. Rosenberg Bros., 276 U.S. 202, 214, 48 S.Ct. 256, 72 L. Ed. 531; Johnson v. United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation, 280 U.S. 320, 327, 50 S.Ct. 118, 74 L.Ed. 451; Brady v. Roosevelt S.S. Co., 317 U.S. 575, 578, 63 S.Ct. 425, 87 L.Ed. 471. 14 Isthmian Steamsh......
  • Venezuelan Meat Export Co. v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • October 9, 1935
    ...of Claims had no jurisdiction. See 58 Ct. Cl. 76. Then, on January 6, 1930, in the case of Johnson v. U. S. Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation, 280 U. S. 320, 50 S. Ct. 118, 74 L. Ed. 451, the Supreme Court decided that the remedy provided by the Suits in Admiralty Act (see 46 USCA ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT