Court Opinion

ID: 9442905
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 19:03:44.470269+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:16.882193
License: Public Domain

HASTIE, Circuit Judge,
(concurring).
To me it seems clear that the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain this libel because this is a suit against the United States to which the United States has not consented.
In support of jurisdiction libellant relies upon the following provision of the Suits in Admiralty Act: “That in cases where if such vessel were privately owned or operated, or if such cargo were privately owned and possessed, a proceeding in admiralty could be maintained at the time of the commencement of the action herein provided for, a libel in personam may he brought against the United States or against such corporation [wholly owned by the United States], as the case may be, provided that such vessel is employed as a merchant vessel or is a tug boat operated by such corporation. * * * ” 1 But that statute does not cover a wrecked vessel never possessed by the United States until government officers raised it from the river bottom and never used by the United States or any government corporation for any purpose. Therefore, I think the action should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
No disagreement with the views expressed by the court on the merits of the controversy is either expressed or implied. I do not reach that aspect of the case at all.

. 41 Stat. 525 (1920) , 46 U.S.C.A. § 742,