Reid Wrecking Co. v. United States

• Decision Date: 16 January 1913
• Docket Number: 2,566.,2,567
• Parties: REID WRECKING CO. v. UNITED STATES. REID WRECKING CO., Limited, v. SAME.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio

202 F. 314

REID WRECKING CO. v. UNITED STATES.

REID WRECKING CO., Limited, v. SAME.

Nos. 2,567, 2,566.

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division.

January 16, 1913

Holding Masten, Duncan & Leckie, of Cleveland, Ohio, for libelants.

U. G Denman, U.S. Atty., and John A. Hadden, Asst. U.S. Atty., of Cleveland, Ohio.

DAY District Judge.

The United States, disclaiming intention to enter appearance in either of these two cases, moves to quash the monition or process in case No. 2,567, as the libelant therein shows that it is a corporation and resident of the state of Michigan; in case No. 2,566, because the libel therein shows that the corporation, libelant, is a corporation of the Dominion of Canada, and a resident thereof. In both cases the cause of action is based upon a contract entered into between the libelant and the War Department of the United States government. The contracts were marine in their nature.

Objection is raised to the right of the Reid Wrecking Company of Michigan to sue in any other district than that of which it is an inhabitant, and of the Canadian Company to sue in this court.

Practically the same question was raised in the case of Hijo v United States, 194 U.S. 322, 24 Sup.Ct. 729, 48 L.Ed. 994, where the Supreme Court said, 'We express no opinion on the question,' wherein the court was referring to the requirement in the act that the petition shall be filed in the district where the plaintiff resides, and the case was decided upon other grounds. A similar question was presented in the case of N.Y. & O.S.S. Co. v. United States, 202 F. 311, decided by Judge Coxe of the Southern District of New York on December 6, 1912. It is apparent, from an examination of that decision, that the United States government waived its rights to object to the suit being brought in that jurisdiction; so that the question presented by these motions is practically a new one, so far as I can find from an investigation of the decisions of the various federal courts.

Although the actions are in admiralty, the authority to bring them is found in the so-called 'Tucker Act,' entitled 'An act to provide for bringing suits against the government of the United States. ' Act March 3, 1887, c. 359, 24 Stat. 505 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 752). The act, so far as it is applicable to the present situation, provides that the Court of Claims shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine all claims upon any contract, express or implied, with the government of the United States, or for damages liquidated or unliquidated, in respect to which claims the party would be entitled to redress against the United States, either in a court of law, equity, or admiralty, if the United States were suable.

Section 2 of the act provides:

'That the Circuit Courts of the United States shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Claims in all cases where the amount of such claim exceeds one thousand dollars and does not exceed ten thousand dollars.'

This is essentially the provision of the new Judiciary Act, referring to the District Court jurisdiction.

Section 5 of the act is as follows:

'That the plaintiff in any suit brought under the provisions of the second section of this act, shall file a petition duly verified, with the clerk of the respective court having jurisdiction of the case, and in the district where the plaintiff resides. Such petition shall set forth the full name and residence of the plaintiff, the nature of his claim, and a succinct statement of the facts upon which his claim is based, the money or any other thing claimed, or the damages sought to be recovered and praying the court for a judgment or decree upon the facts and law.'

Section 6 of this act describes the manner of service or process which must be followed by plaintiffs in suits against the government in the District Court. The service must be by causing a copy of the petition filed in the cause to be served upon the district attorney of the district where the suit is brought, mailing a copy of the same by registered letter to the...