Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
INDEPENDENT CASING & SUPPLY CO. v. ROOSEVELT S. S. CO., Inc, et al., 1930 — 44 F.2d 858 · caselaw · US
Corporations
INDEPENDENT CASING & SUPPLY CO. v. ROOSEVELT S. S. CO., Inc, et al.
44 F.2d 858·United States District Court for the Southern District of New York·1930
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
INDEPENDENT CASING & SUPPLY CO. v. ROOSEVELT S. S. CO., Inc, et al.
District Court, S. D. New York.
Aug. 4, 1930.
Single & Single, of New York City, for plaintiff.
Charles H. Tuttle, U. S. Atty., of New York City, for defendants.
[MAJORITY — BONDY, District Judge.]
BONDY, District Judge.
This court is without jurisdiction of the subject-matter of this suit, as is pleaded in the answer. United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation v. Rosenberg Bros., 276 U. S. 202, 48 S. Ct. 256, 72 L. Ed. 531; Johnson v. Fleet Corp., 280 U. S. 320, 50 S. Ct. 118, 120, 74 L. Ed. 451.
Consent by the United States to be sued in admiralty in a suit in which jurisdiction is acquired by service of process in a specified way does not give consent to be sued in an action at law in which jurisdiction is acquired in a different manner.
In the Johnson Case, supra, the Supreme Court, after the trial of the issue by the District Court, said: “It follows that on disclosure — whether by pleading or proof — of the facts aforesaid, the District Court should have dismissed each case for lack of jurisdiction.”
It may be noted that the Supreme Court did not order the transfer of the causes for trial in admiralty.
The motion to dismiss accordingly is granted.