215

sonam,

Opinion of the Court.

Section 3 of that Act, "Procedure in cases of libel in per,"25 specifically authorizes a libelant, if he so elects, to proceed in accordance with principles of libels in rem if it appears that had the vessel been privately owned a libel in rem might be maintained; election to so proceed is not to preclude the libelant from seeking relief in personam in the same suit. Although the Public Vessels Act does not have a similar provision, § 2 of the Public Vessels Act expressly provides that "suits shall be subject to and proceed in accordance with the provisions" of the Suits in Admiralty Act, "in so far as the same are not inconsistent" with the provisions of the Public Vessels Act.26 Since there is nothing in the Public Vessels Act that is inconsistent with this provision of the Suits in Admiralty Act, we hold that the incorporation clause applies. Other provisions of the Public Vessels Act support such incorporation. Authority is given to sue generally "in admiralty"; this broad generic term implies a right to invoke principles of in rem and in personam liability. Furthermore, in Eastern Transportation Co. v. United States, supra, we held that authority to resort to both types of principles of admiralty liability was borne out by the fact that the Suits in Admiralty Act provided that the United States should be entitled to all the exemptions accorded to private persons under admiralty law. We there held: "The necessary implication is that if, under the Harter Act. . . or the Limitation of Liability Act, . . . the United States as owner of a merchant vessel should not be able to show performance of the conditions upon which such statutory limitations of liability are granted, it must assume the personal liability for negligence in such cases exactly as a private owner would." (272 U. S. 675, 690-91.)

25 46 U. S. C. § 743; see note 9, supra.

26 See note 15, supra.

The Public Vessels Act contains the same exemption provision as that in the Suits in Admiralty Act." This interpretation of the Act accords with the broad purpose expressed in the Congressional hearings and reports on the Act.28 In addition, such an interpretation accomplishes Congress' purpose to grant foreign nationals the same rights as would be accorded our nationals in foreign courts in a similar situation; a narrower interpretation would limit the reciprocal effect of this Act."9

Third. Since we hold that the Public Vessels Act was intended to impose on the United States the same liability (apart from seizure or arrest under a libel in rem) as is imposed by the admiralty law on the private shipowner, it remains to be considered whether petitioner states a valid cause of action under general principles of admiralty law, in rem and in personam. Petitioner alleges that the respondent's vessel, having undertaken to guide petitioner's boat, the Cavelier, through the waters at the entrance of the bay, did so in a negligent fashion causing petitioner to strike a submerged wreck; that the accident was caused solely by the negligence of YP 249 and its crew. It needs no extended citation of authority to show that where a tug negligently grounds its tow, the tug and its owner are liable for the damages resulting therefrom. The Quickstep, 9 Wall. 665; The John G. Stevens, 170 U. S. 113; The Temple Emery, 122 F. 180; The W. G. Mason, 142 F. 913; see, The Caspian, 14 F. 2d 1013; The Murrell, 200 F. 826; The Sally McDevitt v. The J. W. Paxon, 24 F. 302; The Rescue, 74 F. 847.30 The fact that the Cavelier was not fastened to the YP 249 by a tow rope is irrelevant.31 The libel avers that she was under

27 See note 16, supra. 28 See note 20, supra.

29 See note 16, supra.

30 Benedict, Admiralty (6th Ed.), vol. 1, pp. 363–5, 367–69.

31 It is clear that tort liability in admiralty does not require physical contact between the offending vessel and its victim. See Leathers

orders by the naval authorities to proceed directly astern of the YP 249; for all practical purposes she was as firmly fastened to the stern of the YP 249 as if she had been in tow.

The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause remanded to the district court with direction to proceed with consideration of the case on the merits.

CATLIN ET AL., TRUSTEES, v. UNITED STATES.

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT.

No. 419. Argued February 1, 2, 1945.-Decided February 26, 1945. 1. In a proceeding instituted by a petition in the District Court for the condemnation of land under the War Purposes Act of 1917, a "judgment" entered upon a declaration of taking filed pursuant to the Declaration of Taking Act of 1931, and a subsequent order denying the landowner's motion to vacate the judgment and to dismiss the petition, held not "final decisions" under § 128 of the Judicial Code and therefore not appealable. P. 232.

2. The right of the landowner to challenge the validity of the taking, for nonconformity with the prescribed statutory purposes, was not abrogated by the Declaration of Taking Act; but the right of appeal in this relation may be exercised only when final judgment, disposing of the cause in its entirety, has been rendered. P. 240. 142 F.2d 781, affirmed.

v. Blessing, 105 U. S. 626, 630: "Nor is the term 'tort,' when used in reference to admiralty jurisdiction, confined to wrongs or injuries committed by direct force, but it includes wrongs suffered in consequence of the negligence or malfeasance of others, where the remedy at common-law is by an action on the case." See also Eastern Transportation Co. v. United States, 272 U. S. 675; In re Fassett, 142 U. S. 479, 485; Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co. v. Philadelphia & H. de G. Towboat Co., 23 How. 209, 215-16; The Lyndhurst, 92 F. 681; The Kronprinzessin Cecilie, 192 F. 27; The Campania, 203 F. 855; The Washington Irving, 250 F. 797; The Luke, 19 F. 2d 923, aff'd, 19 F. 2d 925; Coastwise Transportation Corp. v. United States, 43 F. 2d 401; The J. C. Hart, 43 F. 2d 566; The Favorita, 43 F.2d 569.

CERTIORARI, 323 U. S. 696, to review the dismissal of an appeal from a judgment and order of the District Court in a condemnation proceeding.

Messrs. Thomas S. McPheeters, Henry Davis and George D. Burroughs submitted for petitioners.

Mr. Ralph F. Fuchs, with whom Solicitor General Fahy, Messrs. J. Edward Williams and Vernon L. Wilkinson were on the brief, for the United States.

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE delivered the opinion of the Court.

The proceeding is for the condemnation of land in Madison County, Illinois, under the War Purposes Act of 1917.1 The question for review is whether orders entered in the

1 Act of August 18, 1890, 26 Stat. 316, as amended by the Acts of July 2, 1917, 40 Stat. 241, and April 11, 1918, 40 Stat. 518, 50 U. S. C. $171. The Act provides:

"That hereafter the Secretary of War may cause proceedings to be instituted in the name of the United States, in any court having jurisdiction of such proceedings for the acquirement by condemnation of any land, temporary use thereof or other interest therein, or right pertaining thereto, needed for the site, location, construction, or prosecution of works for fortifications, coast defenses, military training camps, and for the construction and operation of plants for the production of nitrate and other compounds and the manufacture of explosives and other munitions of war and for the development and transmission of power for the operations of such plants; such proceedings to be prosecuted in accordance with the laws relating to suits for the condemnation of property of the States wherein the proceedings may be instituted . . . And provided further, That when such property is acquired in time of war, or the imminence thereof, upon the filing of the petition for the condemnation of any land, temporary use thereof or other interest therein or right pertaining thereto to be acquired for any of the purposes aforesaid, immediate possession thereof may be taken to the extent of the interest to be acquired and the lands may be occupied and used for military purposes..." (Emphasis added.)

course of the proceedings are appealable as "final decisions" within the meaning of § 128 of the Judicial Code, as amended, 28 U. S. C. § 225 (a).2

The petition for condemnation was filed in the District Court March 31, 1942. The same day an order for immediate possession was entered ex parte. On November 12, 1942, pursuant to the Declaration of Taking Act of February 26, 1931, the Secretary of War filed a declaration and deposited in court $43,579.00 as the estimated compensation for Tract ED-7, to which petitioners assert ownership as trustees. The court thereupon entered "judgment," likewise ex parte, decreeing that title had vested in the United States upon the filing of the declaration and making of the deposit, also declaring the right of just compensation "now vested in the persons entitled thereto," and holding the cause open for further "orders, judgments and decrees."

Thereafter, on August 2, 1943, an order for service of process by publication was entered, and in October following petitioners moved to vacate the "judgment" and to dismiss the petition as to Tract ED-7. After this the Government amended its petition and petitioners filed

2 Section 128 is in part as follows:

4

"The circuit courts of appeal shall have appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal final decisions

"First. In the district courts, in all cases save where a direct review of the decision may be had in the Supreme Court under section 345 of this title."

346 Stat. 1421, 40 U. S. C. §§ 258a-258e. Material portions of the statute are set forth in the text of this opinion and the notes.

Petitioners attacked the original petition for failure to set forth (1) the purpose of the acquisition or that it was for any purpose authorized by the act; (2) that the Secretary of War had found that the land was needed or (3) had requested the Attorney General to institute the proceeding to acquire it for such a purpose. Considering these objections jurisdictional, petitioners regard "all further proceed