Wallis v. United States
Decision Date | 14 January 1952 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 239. |
Citation | 102 F. Supp. 211 |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina |
Parties | WALLIS et al. v. UNITED STATES. |
Charles P. Green, U. S. Atty., Logan D. Howell, Asst. U. S. Atty., Raleigh, N. C., for defendant.
This action is brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1346, 2671 et seq., to recover the sum of $1,153.00 alleged to be the total loss of plaintiff Mrs. Severn T. Wallis, caused by defendant's negligence in its storage of certain furniture belonging to her. The damage was discovered on November 8, 1947, and the suit was commenced in the name of Mrs. Wallis on October 29, 1948, subsequent to Mrs. Wallis' having been fully compensated for her loss by her insurance carrier, the plaintiff Security Company of New Haven.
On August 24, 1950, the defendant secured an order making the Security Insurance Company of New Haven a party plaintiff. On September 27, 1951, the Security Insurance Company of New Haven entered the suit by means of an amended complaint. And on October 9, 1951, the defendant filed its amendatory motion to dismiss the action with respect to the Security Insurance Company of New Haven on the ground that the statute of limitations had run prior to the filing of the amended complaint.
From the above facts it is clear that the plaintiff Security Insurance Company of New Haven is the real party in interest, and Mrs. Wallis is merely a nominal plaintiff. My conclusion is that the addition of the said real party to the nominal plaintiff subsequent to the running of the statute of limitations relates back to the commencement of the action and that, therefore, the action is not barred by the statute of limitations.
The rationale of "relation back" is well expressed in McDonald v. Nebraska, 8 Cir., 1900, 101 F. 171, 178.
The above rationale is peculiarly suited to the circumstances of the instant case. This action was commenced by the subrogee insurance company in the name of Mrs. Wallis in October of 1948, and at that time there was a decided conflict of decisions in the several federal circuits as to whether or not a subrogee could sue the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The insurance company was proceeding along the line of least resistance, for in prior cases the government had resisted suits in the name of the subrogee on the basis of the Anti-Assignment statute.
More than a year subsequent to the bringing of this action the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari for the express purpose of resolving the aforesaid split of decisions in the federal circuits, and the court held there, United States v. Ætna Casualty & Surety Co., 1949, 338 U.S. 366, 70 S.Ct. 207, 94 L.Ed. 171, that a subrogee that had paid the entire loss of the insured was the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Penn Millers Ins. Co. v. U.S., 5:06-CV-16-D(3).
...Serv., 511 F.2d 64 (7th Cir.1975), Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. United States, 507 F.2d 508 (6th Cir.1974), and Wallis v. United States, 102 F.Supp. 211 (E.D.N.C.1952). Penn Millers argues that in these three FTCA cases, the court held that a motion to amend and motion to relate back wer......
-
Arch Chemicals, Inc. v. Radiator Specialty Co., 07-1339-HU
...Link Aviation, Inc. v. Downs, 325 F.2d 613, 614-15 (D.C.Cir.1963), Garr v. Clayville, 71 F.R.D. 553 (D.Del.1976) and Wallis v. United States, 102 F.Supp. 211 (D.Mass.1952). ...
-
Mason-Rust v. LABORERS'INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 42
...& Constr. Trades Council, 298 F.Supp. 699, 703-704 (D.Or.1968); Killebrew v. Moore, 41 F.R.D. 269 (N.D. Miss.1966); Wallis v. United States, 102 F.Supp. 211 (E.D.N.C.1952); United States v. Saunders Petroleum Co., 7 F. R.D. 608 (W.D.Mo.1947). The defendant did not move for joinder and must ......
-
HOWELL V. CLAIBORNE, 08625
...same legal effect as if the suit had been originally commenced in the name of the proper plaintiff. Id. (citing Wallis v. United States, 102 F. Supp. 211, 212 (E.D.N.C. 1951). Our Supreme Court held that based on Tenn. R. Civ. P. 1 7.01, the husband, as the real party in interest should be ......