Summary
In Old Colony v. United States, D.C., 74 F. Supp. 723, from the Southern District of Ohio, which was a suit for property damage, due to an automobile collision, it was dismissed because the Tort Act did not authorize the maintenance of a suit upon a derivative claim.
Summary of this case from Bewick v. United StatesOpinion
Civil Action No. 792.
June 17, 1947.
Pickrel, Schaeffer Ebeling, of Dayton, Ohio, for plaintiff.
Ray J. O'Donnell, U.S. Dist. Atty., of Dayton, Ohio, for defendant.
Action by Old Colony Insurance Company against the United States of America under the Federal Tort Claims Act. On defendant's motion to dismiss.
Motion sustained.
This day this cause came on to be heard on the motion to dismiss heretofore, to-wit, on May 13, 1947, filed by and on behalf of defendant, The United States of America.
In its motion, defendant moves the court to dismiss this action "on the grounds (among others) that the Federal Tort Claims Act [28 U.S.C.A. § 921 et seq.] does not authorize the maintenance of suits upon Derivative Claims."
Upon consideration of the motion and the briefs and arguments of counsel in support of and contra the motion, and upon the ground above set forth in said motion contained, the court finds that the motion is well taken and that it should be sustained.
It is, therefore, by the Court ordered, adjudged and decreed that the motion to dismiss above referred to, filed on behalf of the defendant be, and hereby it is, sustained, and this action is dismissed at plaintiff's costs.
To all of which findings, rulings, orders and decrees of the Court, plaintiff excepts.