From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Seeley v. Waterman Steamship Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 8, 1948
274 App. Div. 934 (N.Y. App. Div. 1948)

Opinion

November 8, 1948.


In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, brought by a seaman under the Jones Act (Merchant Marine Act, 1920, § 33; U.S. Code, tit. 46, § 688), order denying appellant's motion to dismiss the complaint and to vacate the alleged service of summons for lack of jurisdiction of the defendant's person and the subject of the action, reversed on the law and the facts, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with $10 costs. This action was instituted by a Massachusetts resident against an Alabama corporation doing business in New York, by reason of an accident which occurred on a vessel operated, managed and controlled by the corporation while it was in anchorage at Boston, Massachusetts. The record fails to show that service of the summons had been made in accordance with the provisions of section 229 of the Civil Practice Act, nor does it show any special circumstances that require or warrant the retention of jurisdiction of this case in the exercise of sound discretion, particularly since the respondent has already litigated in an admiralty suit a claim based upon the same accident. (Cf. Murnan v. Wabash Railway Co., 246 N.Y. 244; 222 App. Div. 833-834.) Nolan, P.J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Sneed, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Seeley v. Waterman Steamship Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 8, 1948
274 App. Div. 934 (N.Y. App. Div. 1948)
Case details for

Seeley v. Waterman Steamship Corporation

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM J. SEELEY, Respondent, v. WATERMAN STEAMSHIP CORPORATION, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 8, 1948

Citations

274 App. Div. 934 (N.Y. App. Div. 1948)

Citing Cases

Stephenson v. Golden

Many cases are collected in 23 A.L.R. 1500. Among them are Bernard v. Bougard, Harr. Ch. (Mich.) 130;…

Innis v. Michigan Trust Co.

In this transaction the presumption is that the husband's paying the consideration for the grant to his wife…