United States v. The James L. Richards, 1231.
Decision Date | 08 February 1949 |
Docket Number | No. 1231.,1231. |
Citation | 82 F. Supp. 12 |
Parties | UNITED STATES, on Behalf of LORDS COMMISSIONERS FOR EXECUTING OFFICE OF LORD HIGH ADMIRAL, etc. v. THE JAMES L. RICHARDS. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Thomas F. McGovern, Atty., Admiralty Section, Department of Justice, of Washington, D. C., William T. McCarthy, U. S. Atty., and Edward O. Gourdin, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Boston, Mass., for plaintiff
Seymour P. Edgerton, Charles S. Bolster, and Bingham, Dana & Gould, all of Boston, Mass., for respondent.
This is a libel for salvage services rendered on August 30 and 31, 1943 by H.M.R. T. Busy to the S.S. James L. Richards October 7, 1947 the Lords Commissioners for executing the office of the Lord High Admiral of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on behalf of His Britannic Majesty as owner of the Busy assigned his salvage claim to the United States. October 14, 1947 the officers and crew of the Busy acting through the British Treasury Solicitor authorized the United States Attorney General to act for them in their personal claim. April 12, 1946 the United States District Attorney, acting for both the United States and the United States Attorney General, filed a libel against the James L. Richards, and on the same day this Court issued a warrant and a monition.
Article fifteenth of the answer pointed out that the libel was not brought within two years from August 1943 and alleged that "this action is barred". Claimants then moved to dismiss the libel.
The claimants introduced an uncontradicted affidavit that from September 15, 1943 until August 26, 1945 the James L. Richards was within the District of Massachusetts fifty-two times and was within the territorial waters of the United States an additional seventy-nine times. The claimants concede that the vessel was not within the territorial waters of the United Kingdom during the two years following August 31, 1943.
The question presented is a very narrow one of interpreting the cited statute of limitations. For in the light of Guaranty Trust Co. v. United States, 304 U.S. 126, 142, 58 S.Ct. 785, 82 L.Ed. 1224, it is plain that however it be interpreted the statute is applicable to a claim of a foreign sovereign and to ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Riedley v. Hudson Motor Car Co.
...82 F. Supp. 8 ... HUDSON MOTOR CAR CO. et al ... United States District Court W. D. Kentucky, at Louisville ... ...
-
HIS MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT, ETC. v. Flying Arrow
...a suit by the United States for salvage services rendered by two warships was allowed, and in the case of United States v. The James L. Richards, D.C.Mass. 1949, 82 F.Supp. 12, the right of the British Government (or the United States Government as assignee) to bring suit for services by a ......