TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

The Philadelphia National Bank v. United States of America Broward Marine, Inc.

The PHILADELPHIA NATIONAL BANK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; Broward Marine, Inc., Et Al., Defendants-Appellees

The Philadelphia Nat'l Bank v. United States Broward Marine, Inc., 411 F.2d 747 (5th Cir. 1969)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
July 7, 1969
Docket
No. 26734
Judges
Tuttle, Simpson, Cassibry
Citations
411 F.2d 747

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from the dismissal of the plaintiff’s suit against the United States based upon alleged breach of duty of a United States Marshal while storing a vessel, on which the plaintiff held a preferred mortgage, pending the foreclosure proceedings. The dismissal by the trial court was based upon the undisputed fact that the action was not commenced for more than two years after the marshal’s custody was terminated and the vessel was turned over to the plaintiff which bid it in on foreclosure sale.

Whether the action was brought as a tort claim against the United States or under the Suits in Admiralty Act, the statutory period of limitation is two years. If, as contended by the United States, the action is one which is cognizable by the United States Courts under the Suits in Admiralty Act, such act would be the exclusive remedy. In that event, also, there can be no doubt but that the statutory period of two years would clearly bar the action.

If, on the contrary, the case could be considered as a federal tort claim action, we do not equate the matter of damage and the time of discovery with a case of malpractice by a government physician where the injured party is unable to discover that he has been damaged until some time after the initial act of malpractice. Cf. Quinton v. United States (5 Cir. 1962) 304 F.2d 234, 241 .

The complaint here contained no jurisdictional allegations. Although an amendment could be received, even in this court, to allege jurisdictional facts, if supported by the record, this would avail the appellant nothing for under either ground of jurisdiction the plaintiff would find itself barred by the two year statute of limitations.

The judgment is Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1971: 11972: 11987: 119712026peak 1971 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Blue Dolphin, Inc. v. United States666 F. Supp. 1538 (S.D. Fla. 1987)
  2. Charles W. Cooper v. United States442 F.2d 908 (7th Cir. 1971)
  3. Kindrew v. United States352 F. Supp. 277 (M.D. Fla. 1972)

Most recent

  1. Blue Dolphin, Inc. v. United States666 F. Supp. 1538 (S.D. Fla. 1987)
  2. Kindrew v. United States352 F. Supp. 277 (M.D. Fla. 1972)
  3. Charles W. Cooper v. United States442 F.2d 908 (7th Cir. 1971)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Quinton v. United States, 304 F.2d 234 (5th Cir. 1962) 112

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list