Case ID: f-supp_132/html/0479-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

AGRICULTURAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al. v. The UNITED STATES.
    No. 481-54.
    United States Court of Claims.
    July 12, 1955.
    Walter P. Hickey, New York City, for plaintiffs.
    Leavenworth Colby, Washington, D. C., with whom was Warren E. Burger, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant.
    Before JONES, Chief Judge, and LITTLETON, WHITAKER, MADDEN and LARAMORE, Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff and one hundred forty-four other plaintiffs sue for general average contribution from the United States for the expense of extinguishing a fire on the S. S. Winslow Homer on which defendant, with others, had shipped certain goods.

Defendant defends on the ground that the' district courts have exclusive jurisdiction for such a cause of action under the Suits in Admiralty Act, as amended and Public Vessels Act, 46 U.S.C.A. §§ 741-752, 781-790.

Defendant is clearly right. Matson Navigation Co. v. United States, 284 U.S. 352, 52 S.Ct. 162, 76 L.Ed. 336; Johnson v. United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp., 280 U.S. 320, 50 S.Ct. 118, 74 L.Ed. 451; Calmar S. S. Corp. v. United States, 345 U.S. 446, 455, 73 S.Ct. 733, 97 L.Ed. 1140; M. & J. Tracy, Inc., v. United States, 111 F.Supp. 956, 125 Ct.Cl. 70, 75, certiorari denied 346 U.S. 854, 74 S.Ct. 68, 98 L.Ed. 368; Field v. United States, 113 F.Supp. 190, 125 Ct.Cl. 559, 561, certiorari denied 346 U.S. 922, 74 S.Ct. 308, 98 L.Ed. 416; Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. v. United States, 120 F.Supp. 917, 128 Ct. Cl. 747, certiorari denied 348 U.S. 872, 75 S.Ct. 108; Lykes Bros. S. S. Co. v. United States, 124 F.Supp. 622,129 Ct.Cl. 455, certiorari denied 348 U.S. 971, 75 S.Ct. 530; Waterman S. S. Corp. v. United States, 124 F.Supp. 634, 129 Ct.Cl. 460, certiorari denied 348 U.S. 971, 75 S.Ct. 530; Prudential S. S. Corp. v. United States (States Marine Corp. of Del. v. United States), 2 Cir., 220 F.2d 655.

Defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted, and plaintiffs’ petition is dismissed.

It is so ordered.