Lancaster v. Casey, 40911

• Decision Date: 21 September 1964
• Docket Number: No. 3,No. 40911,40911,3
• Citation: Lancaster v. Casey, 138 S.E.2d 388, 110 Ga.App. 278 (Ga. App. 1964)
• Parties: Don LANCASTER et al. v. Edison CASEY
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 388

138 S.E.2d 388

110 Ga.App. 278

Don LANCASTER et al. v. Edison CASEY.

No. 40911.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 3.

Sept. 21, 1964.

Syllabus by the Court

State and Federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction of in personam suits for damages to person or property arising out of the operation of vessels in navigable waters, unless the matter is one peculiarly cognizable in admiralty.

Plaintiffs, a partnership, sued for damage to their dock allegedly caused by the negligence of defendant. Defendant's boat, tied to another which was tied to plaintiffs' dock, was caught in the current of a flood tide and began pulling on the other boat and the dock. An allegedly inexperienced 'striker' left aboard defendant's boat put it in reverse, pulling down a part of plaintiff' dock.

Defendant filed plea to the jurisdiction on the basis that the subject matter of the suit is one of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction and is exclusively vested in Federal courts. This plea was sustained and plaintiffs except.

Gary E. Gowen, Kingsland, for plaintiffs in error.

Harrison & Henry, Robert W. Harrison, Jr., Q. Robert Henry, St. Marys, for defendant in error.

EBERHARDT, Judge.

Defendant's attack on the subject matter jurisdiction of the superior court in this case is made under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1333, which provides in part: 'The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of: (1) Any civil case admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise 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 defendants' 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...