From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Glover v. United States

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Oct 2, 1952
109 F. Supp. 701 (S.D.N.Y. 1952)

Opinion

October 2, 1952.

Philip F. Di Costanzo, Brooklyn, N.Y., proctor for libelant. Ray Camarda, Brooklyn, of counsel.

Myles J. Lane, U.S. Atty., New York City, proctor for respondent, by McNutt Nash, Eli Ellis, New York City, of counsel.


Respondent moves to dismiss this action brought under the Suits in Admiralty Act, 46 U.S.C.A. § 741 et seq., on the ground that libelant failed to comply with the service requirements of that statute.

This section requires that "libelant shall forthwith serve a copy of his libel on the United States attorney for such district (the district in which the libel is brought) and mail a copy thereof by registered mail to the Attorney General of the United States * * *." 46 U.S.C.A. § 742.

Libelant's proctor in this suit, brought in this district, mistakenly mailed a copy of the libel to the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, instead of to the Attorney General. This error was not rectified until the respondent had filed this motion — ten months later.

In a suit such as this where respondent has waived its sovereign immunity, the formal requirements of the statute must be strictly complied with. Marich v. United States, D.C., 84 F. Supp. 829.

Libelant's failure to "forthwith" serve a copy of the libel on the Attorney General requires us to grant respondent's motion. California Casualty Indemnity Exchange v. United States, D.C., 74 F. Supp. 404.

Motion granted.


Summaries of

Glover v. United States

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Oct 2, 1952
109 F. Supp. 701 (S.D.N.Y. 1952)
Case details for

Glover v. United States

Case Details

Full title:GLOVER v. UNITED STATES

Court:United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Oct 2, 1952

Citations

109 F. Supp. 701 (S.D.N.Y. 1952)

Citing Cases

Libby v. U.S.

In contrast, the cases cited by Defendant hold that delays ranging from sixty days to several years do not…

City of New York v. McAllister Brothers, Inc.

Were this the meaning that Congress intended, it would have had no difficulty expressing it. Our…