Nahmeh v. United States
| Decision Date | 02 March 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 157,157 |
| Parties | NAHMEH v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Silas Blake Axtell, of New York City, for appellant.
Mr. J. Frank Staley, of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
William Nahmeh, employed as a fireman on the steamship Quinnipiac, was injured August 3, 1920, in the performance of his duties. One of his legs had to be amputated. To recover for this injury, he filed a libel on March 20, 1922, against the United States as owner of the Quinnipiac, under the Suits in Admiralty Act of March 9, 1920, c. 95, 41 St. 525 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, §§ 1251 1/4-1251 1/4 l), in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York where he lived. The steamship Quinnipiac was then in the Southern district of New York. The United States appeared specially and excepted, on the ground that the libel did not show that the steamship was at the date of the filing of the libel within the Eastern district of New York, and there was no jurisdiction. December 20, 1922, the appellant made a motion before the District Court for the Eastern District for an order removing the cause to the Southern district. The District Court denied the motion to transfer the cause, and under a decision of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in The Isonomia, 285 F. 516, that the only district in which such a suit could be brought was where the vessel was, dismissed it for want of jurisdiction.
The Suits in Admiralty Act was passed to provide a suit in personam in lieu of the previous unlimited right of suitors to libel merchant vessels belonging to the United States government in rem in the ports of the United States and in its possessions—a right which had proved objectionable. Section 2 and section 3 of the act indicate the District Courts in which suits under the act were thereafter to be brought. The relevant parts of those sections are as follows:
Section 2: That
Section 3: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burnet v. Coronado Oil Gas Co
... ... 7a common school system and pledged her faith to preserve the lands so conveyed by the United States as a sacred trust, and to keep the same for the uses and purposes for which they were ... ...
-
Shaw v. Library of Congress
...Act. Id. at 170-181, 96 S.Ct. at 1323-1329, 47 L.Ed.2d at 659-665. In no respect has the Court departed from Nahmeh v. United States, 267 U.S. 122, 45 S.Ct. 277, 69 L.Ed. 536 (1925), and its progeny, holding that the Act's waiver of sovereign immunity is to be liberally construed. See text ......
-
Venezuelan Meat Export Co. v. United States
...or operator assumed. See Blamberg Bros. v. United States, 260 U. S. 452, 43 S. Ct. 179, 67 L. Ed. 346; Nahmeh v. United States, 267 U. S. 122, 45 S. Ct. 277, 69 L. Ed. 536; Eastern Transportation Co. v. United States, 272 U. S. 675, 47 S. Ct. 289, 71 L. Ed. 472. But we are told by the gover......
-
Canadian Aviator v. United States
...by an unduly restrictive interpretation. See The Lake Monroe, 250 U.S. 246, 39 S.Ct. 460, 63 L.Ed. 962; Nahmeh v. United States, 267 U.S. 122, 125, 126, 45 S.Ct. 277, 278, 69 L.Ed. 536; Eastern Transportation Co. v. United States, supra; Federal Land Bank of St. Louis v. Priddy, 295 U.S. 22......
-
The automobile exception swallows the rule: Florida v. White.
...471 U.S. at 390-94. (224) South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976). (225) White, 119 S. Ct. at 1559 (citing Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 122, 150-52 (1925)); see also Wyoming v. Houghton, 119 S. Ct. 1297, 1303 (1999) (the Court's other 1999 automobile exception case that also use......
-
Can a Presidential Pardon Trump an Article Iii Court’s Criminal Contempt Conviction? a Separation of Powers Analysis of President Trump’s Pardon of Sheriff Joe Arpaio
...in the same way.146 This is an extremely high threshold to meet and a court is unlikely to find standing. 141. Ex parte Grossman, 267 U.S. at 122. The Court mentioned in Grossman that it was in a unique position but, as previously discussed, ultimately did not rule in favor of the district......