TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

City of Gretna v. Defense Plant Corp.

CITY OF GRETNA v. DEFENSE PLANT CORPORATION

City of Gretna v. Def. Plant Corp., 159 F.2d 412 (5th Cir. 1947)
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
February 15, 1947
Docket
No. 11777
Judges
Holmes
Citations
159 F.2d 4121947 A.M.C. 4611947 U.S. App. LEXIS 2473

Opinion of the Court — Holmes

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

HOLMES, Circuit Judge.

The City of Gretna appeals from a summary judgment against it in its suit against the Defense Plant Corporation, wherein it sought recovery for the destruction of piling erected by it in the Mississippi River, alleged to have been destroyed by a tug of the defendant that collided with the piling.

On a motion for summary judgment, it appeared that the appellee owned twenty-one tugs at the time of the collision, one of which did the damage, but the appellant was unable to identify the particular tug. It further appeared by affidavit, *413 and was undisputed, that eighteen of the tugs owned by the appellee had been chartered to private operators, and that the ap-pellee had no control over their management or navigation. The remaining three tugs were accounted for at the time in question, and each was shown to be not the vessel that did the damage.

It is contended that the defendant, under Admiralty Rule 56, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723, should have impleaded the charterers of its vessels, which were operating on the river at the time, but this is a civil action and the Admiralty Rules have no application. Rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, gave the defendant the right to implead its charterers, but did not require it to do so. The right to bring in third parties is permissive, not obligatory.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1955: 119552026peak 1955 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Canale v. American Export Lines, Inc.17 F.R.D. 269 (S.D.N.Y. 1955)

Most recent

  1. Canale v. American Export Lines, Inc.17 F.R.D. 269 (S.D.N.Y. 1955)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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