Schoening v. 102 Jute Bags, 55 of 1955

Decision Date11 March 1955
Docket NumberNo. 55 of 1955,55 of 1955
Citation132 F. Supp. 561
PartiesFrederick SCHOENING, 279 St. George Street, Toronto, Canada, Libellant, v. A Shipment of 102 JUTE BAGS (100 lbs. each) OF STANDARD CANADIAN 3R ASBESTOS SPINNING FIBRE, (now on the Ship "American Traveler" on the High Seas bound for Hamburg, Germany), and J. Schoening, 12 Lowther Avenue, Toronto, Canada, Respondent, and United States Lines Company, a corporation, 308 Bourse Building, Philadelphia, Pa.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Elias Magil, John Swartz, Philadelphia, Pa., for libellant.

Clark, Ladner, Fortenbaugh & Young, Philadelphia, Pa., for respondent J. Schoening.

LORD, District Judge.

Respondents have filed peremptory exceptions to the libel for the reasons that:

1. This Court has no admiralty jurisdiction of the subject matter.

2. The facts alleged are insufficient to constitute a cause of action.

We will consider the jurisdictional problem first, for if this Court has no jurisdiction in the matter, any other questions need not be considered.

The libel alleges that 102 bags of asbestos belonging to libellant were tortiously removed by respondent J. Schoening from a warehouse in Pennsylvania and subsequently shipped on the high seas on a ship owned by the respondent, United States Lines Company. In their exceptions to the libel, both respondents aver that this Court has no admiralty jurisdiction because the conversion of the asbestos was not committed or consummated on navigable waters.

Although there appears to be no decision with facts comparable to the present case, this Court believes that admiralty does not have jurisdiction merely because goods happen to be upon navigable waters at some time after the operative facts occurred and after the alleged cause of action has become established.

In resolving this jurisdictional problem it is essential to determine the elements of admiralty jurisdiction as it pertains to torts. In United States v. Matson Navigation Co., 9 Cir., 1953, 201 F.2d 610, 613, Judge Stephens stated:

"An essential to the jurisdiction of the admiralty courts over a tort is that it was committed in relation to navigable waters." (Emphasis supplied.)

Such an element, of course, does not preclude admiralty jurisdiction where there is a tort arising out of a maritime status or relationship. Strika v. Netherlands Ministry of Traffic, 2 Cir., 1950, 185 F.2d 555.

But in the instant case, was there a tort either "committed in relation to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • David Crystal, Inc. v. Cunard Steam-Ship Company
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • October 10, 1963
    ...was at some time shipped by a carrier over navigable waters is insufficient to confer admiralty jurisdiction. Schoening v. 102 Jute Bags, 132 F.Supp. 561 (E.D.Pa.1955). In sum, the requisite jurisdiction for Clark's impleading petition cannot here be premised on a maritime Clark urges that ......
  • Evergreen Marine Corp. v. Six Consignments of Frozen Scallops
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • June 9, 1993
    ...warehouseman whose loss of property, entrusted by ocean carrier, occurred while goods were on land); cf. Schoening v. Shipment of 102 Jute Bags, 132 F.Supp. 561, 562 (E.D.Pa.1955) (no admiralty jurisdiction over ocean carrier for shipment of goods converted from onshore warehouse; "the conv......
  • Litwinowicz v. Weyerhaeuser Steamship Company, Civ. A. No. 21553
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • December 21, 1959
    ...D.C.S.D. N.Y.1952, 112 F.Supp. 202; Revel v. American Export Lines, Inc., D.C.E.D. Va.1958, 162 F.Supp. 279; Schoening v. 102 Jute Bags, D.C.E.D.Pa.1955, 132 F. Supp. 561. The authorities relied upon by Weyerhaeuser are not, in our view, determinative of the We decide, therefore, that the s......
  • American Hawaiian Ventures v. MVJ LATUHARHARY
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • May 2, 1966
    ...between the alleged conversion is too remote from the activities of the vessel to invoke admiralty jurisdiction. Schoening v. 102 Bags of Jute, 132 F.Supp. 561 (E.D.Pa. 1955). For the libel in personam against Djakarta, no maritime lien against the Latuharhary need exist if other grounds of......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT