Miller v. United States, 1670.
| Decision Date | 19 July 1935 |
| Docket Number | No. 1670.,1670. |
| Parties | MILLER v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of New York |
Daniel J. O'Mara, of Rochester, N. Y. (Edmund Clynes, of Rochester, N. Y., of counsel), for plaintiff.
George L. Grobe, U. S. Atty., of Buffalo, N. Y. (Frederick T. Devlin, of Buffalo, N. Y., of counsel), for the United States.
On the 18th day of June, 1935, plaintiff caused a summons to be served upon the defendant by delivery of a copy thereof to an assistant district attorney. It was intended by this means to commence an action for recovery under a war risk insurance policy previously issued to the plaintiff. The aforementioned date was the last day upon which the action could be commenced. Defendant has moved to vacate the service of the summons.
The World War Veterans' Act 1924, § 19, as amended (38 USCA § 445), provides that, in suits brought under the act, the procedure shall be the same as that provided in sections 762, 763, and 765 of title 28 of the United States Code (28 US CA §§ 762, 763, 765) in so far as applicable. With the latter section we are not concerned on this motion. Section 762 provides for the filing of a petition setting forth certain prescribed facts. Section 763 provides for service of copies of the petition on the district attorney and the Attorney General and requires the district attorney to appear and defend the interests of the government. After receipt of a copy of the petition, he is allowed sixty days to file an answer.
Defendant asserts that the above-mentioned sections must be strictly construed and that they require an action, such as is here contemplated, to be commenced by the filing and service of a petition, exclusive of any and all other means. Plaintiff contends that since sections 762 and 763 are silent as to the time when the copy of the petition filed is to be served on the district attorney, and since there is no express provision defining when such suit is brought, the service of a summons, in accordance with the state practice for commencing an action, was a correct and proper method of starting the action under the Conformity Act (17 Stat. 197).
It is the opinion of the court that Congress intended that the service of the petition on the district attorney should mark the commencement of the action. Sections 762 and 763, read together, prescribe a simple and complete method of raising the issues of the litigation. The district attorney is not required to act until a petition is served upon him. Were the plaintiff allowed to serve a summons to commence the action and then file a petition at his leisure, no time for such filing being specified in the act, the statute of limitations governing the bringing of such actions would be nullified. It could not be contended that such result was intended.
It is not questioned that procedure set forth in consent legislation must be strictly followed in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Danahy Packing Co. v. McGowan
... ... sufficient to entitle plaintiffs to equitable relief; that the United States is the real party in interest and may not be sued without its ... Wallace, 259 U. S. 44, 42 S. Ct. 453, 66 L. Ed. 822, and Miller v. Standard Nut Margarine Co., 284 U. S. 498, 52 S. Ct. 260, 263, 76 L ... ...
-
Munro v. United States
...Co. v. United States, 202 F. 314 (D. C.N.D.Ohio); Whalen Paper & Pulp Mills v. Davis, 53 App.D.C. 84, 288 F. 438; Miller v. United States, 11 F.Supp. 924 (D.C.W.D.N.Y.). In others, where the question was the same as in the case at bar, namely, whether the action was brought in time, it has ......
-
Genesee Valley Trust Co. v. United States, 124.
...on an assistant United States attorney at Rochester, N. Y. A motion to quash the service of summons was granted by Judge Knight. Miller v. United States, D.C., 11 F.Supp. 924. Thereafter on August 27, 1935 Miller served a copy of what purported to be the petition in his suit upon the United......
-
Spencer v. United States
...of the statute have been met or at least until a copy of the petition has been served on the United States attorney. Miller v. United States (D.C.) 11 F.Supp. 924; Creasy v. United States (D.C.) 4 F.Supp. 175. No case has held that the suit can be regarded as begun before even the petition ......