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.
W. R. GRACE & CO. v. UNITED STATES, 1931 — 53 F.2d 272 · caselaw · US
Admiralty
W. R. GRACE & CO. v. UNITED STATES
53 F.2d 272·United States District Court for the Southern District of New York·1931
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
W. R. GRACE & CO. v. UNITED STATES.
District Court, S. D. New York.
June 25, 1931.
Kirlin, Campbell, Hickox, Keating & McGrann, of New York City, for plaintiff.
George Z. Medalie, U. S. Atty., of New York City (Chas. E. Wythe, Asst. U. S. Atty., of New York City), for the United States.
[MAJORITY — COXE, District Judge.]
COXE, District Judge.
The Snug Harbor Case (Eastern Transp. Co. v. United States) 272 U. S. 675, 47 S. Ct. 289, 71 L. Ed. 472, holds squarely that suit may be maintained against the United States under the Suits in Admiralty Act (46 USCA §§ 741-752) even though the vessel involved is a worthless wreck and there is nothing to support liability in rem. It is therefore apparent that the present suit could have been prosecuted against the United States under the Suits in Admiralty Act; and, that being so, there is no basis for the present jurisdiction. It is no answer that when suit was ’originally commenced under the Suits in Admiralty Act it was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the res had disappeared. The Cape Fear(D. C.) 8 F.(2d)„80. That decision has now been shown to be erroneous, Eastern Transp. Co. v. United States, supra; and there is no escape from a dismissal, Johnson v. United States, 280 U. S. 320, 50 S. Ct. 118, 74 L. Ed. 451.
The motion to dismiss is granted.