Smith-Johnson Steamship Corp. v. United States
| Decision Date | 12 July 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 98-55.,98-55. |
| Citation | 135 Ct. Cl. 866,142 F. Supp. 367 |
| Parties | SMITH-JOHNSON STEAMSHIP CORP. v. The UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Claims Court |
Arthur M. Becker, Washington, D. C., Melvin Spaeth, Gerald B. Greenwald and Becker & Maguire, Washington, D. C., on the brief, for plaintiff.
Leavenworth Colby, Washington, D. C., with whom was George Cochran Doub, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant.
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and LITTLETON, WHITAKER, MADDEN, and LARAMORE, Judges.
In our opinion in this case rendered March 6, 1956, 139 F.Supp. 298, which was before us at that time on plaintiff's motion to strike defendant's special defense, we granted that motion, holding that plaintiff's petition was based on a statute and did not arise out of the maritime contract between the United States and plaintiff. Hence, we said the courts of admiralty did not have jurisdiction of such a case and that this court did.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals had held in Sword Line, Inc., v. United States, 228 F.2d 344, that the suit was on the contract, and since the contract was for the charter of a ship, it was maritime in nature, and, therefore, the admiralty courts had jurisdiction. Certiorari was granted in that case, and the Second Circuit was affirmed by the Supreme Court, 76 S.Ct. 1047, in a per curiam opinion, which reads:
Since it is now settled that such causes of action are maritime causes of action and that, consequently, courts of admiralty have jurisdiction of them, this court does not have jurisdiction, because it is settled that the Suits in Admiralty Act, 46 U.S.C.A. § 741 et seq., vesting jurisdiction in the district courts, "furnishes the exclusive remedy in admiralty against the United States and the corporations on all maritime causes of action arising out of the possession or operation of merchant vessels." Johnson v. United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp., 280 U.S. 320, 50 S.Ct. 118, 120, 74 L.Ed. 451.
Plaintiff, Smith-Johnson Steamship Corporation, in its memorandum brief filed pursuant to the Court's order of June 14, 1956, says this case was overruled by the Supreme Court in Brady v. Roosevelt Steamship Co., 317 U.S. 575, 578, 63 S.Ct. 425, 87 L.Ed. 471.
In the opinion in Johnson v. United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp., supra, the court dealt with four cases, of which United States Shipping Board Merchant Fleet Corporation v. Lustgarten was one. In the Lustgarten case, an action at law for damages for personal injuries was brought in the United States District Court against the Fleet Corporation and the Navigation Company. The Navigation Company was a private corporation operating a vessel owned by the United States as the agent of the United States. Defendant's answer alleged that "plaintiff's remedy is provided exclusively by the Suits in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Luckenbach Steamship Company v. United States
...also Matson Navigation Co. v. United States, 284 U.S. 352, 52 S.Ct. 162, 76 L.Ed. 336. This court, in Smith-Johnson Steamship Corp. v. United States, 142 F.Supp. 367, 135 Ct.Cl. 866, certiorari denied 352 U.S. 895, 77 S.Ct. 127, 1 L.Ed.2d 85, said, at 142 F.Supp. 368, 135 Ct.Cl. "Since it i......
-
BUCK KREIHS COMPANY v. United States
...United States, 185 Ct.Cl. 604 (1968), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1064, 90 S.Ct. 1501, 25 L.Ed.2d 685 (1970); Smith-Johnson Steamship Corp. v. United States, 142 F.Supp. 367, 135 Ct.Cl. 866, cert. denied, 352 U.S. 895, 77 S.Ct. 127, 1 L.Ed.2d 85 (1956). Finally, claims founded upon maritime cont......
-
Martran Steamship Co. v. Aegean Tankers Limited
...claim, where either is alleged as affecting the rights of parties to a maritime action." See also, Smith-Johnson S. S. Corp. v. United States, 1956, 142 F.Supp. 367, 135 Ct.Cl. 866; Compania Argentina De Navegacion Dodero v. Atlas Maritime Corp., It thus appears that libelant is the real pa......
- Meyers v. United States, 581-52.