The Gul Djemal Hussein Lutfi Bey v. Campbell Stuart
Citation | 44 S.Ct. 244,264 U.S. 90,1924 A. M. C. 434,68 L.Ed. 574 |
Decision Date | 18 February 1924 |
Docket Number | No. 83,83 |
Parties | THE GUL DJEMAL. HUSSEIN LUTFI BEY v. CAMPBELL & STUART, inc |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
Messrs. Wm. A. Purrington and John M. Woolsey, both of New York City, for appellant.
Mr. Oscar R. Houston, of New York City, for appellee.
Seeking to recover for supplies and services furnished at New York during November, 1920, in order to fit her for an intended voyage across the Atlantic, appellee libeled the steamship Gul Djemal and caused her arrest under the ordinary admiralty practice. Her master, appearing for the sole purpose of objecting to the court's jurisdiction, claimed immunity for the vessel because owned and possessed by the Turkish government, and asked that she be released. No one except the master has advanced this claim.
The parties stipulated1: The Turkish government and the United States are at peace with each other, but diplomatic relations have been severed. The Gul Djemal is the absolute property of the Turkish government and under the administration of the transport section of the Ministry of Marine. That government employed and paid the master, officers and crew—the master being a reserve naval officer—and was in possession of the ship when arrested. She —
'was engaged in commercial trade, under charter for one round voyage to George Dedeoglou, who engaged to carry passengers and goods for hire, and in such trade the Gul Djemal was not functioning in a naval or military capacity, nor was there anything of a naval or military character connected with the voyage of the Gul Djemal from Constantinople to New York and return.' return.'
The court below denied the alleged immunity and passed a decree for the libelant. Upon this direct appeal only the question of jurisdiction is presented. The relevant certificate follows:
Appellee maintains that whatever may be the proper rule in our courts concerning the ultimate immunity of vessels owned by foreign governments and employed in ordinary trade and commerce, such immunity will not be granted upon the mere claim of the master, especially when the United States has no diplomatic relations with the sovereign owner. Such claim can be made only by one duly authorized to vindicate the owner's sovereignty. Ex parte Muir, 254 U. S. 522, 532, 533, 41 Sup. Ct. 185, 187 (65 L. Ed. 383), is relied upon to support this view. It is there said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Outboard Marine Corp. v. Pezetel
...American court action involving the seizure of a commercial steamship owned by the Turkish government, The "Gul Djemal," 264 U.S. 90, 44 S.Ct. 244, 68 L.Ed. 574 (1924), or those Cuban persons authorized by the Cuban government to seize and operate the cigar industry in Cuba who unsuccessful......
-
Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc v. Republic of Cuba
...or indicate that the interventors had governmental, as opposed to merely commercial, authority for the refusal. The "Gul Djemal", 264 U.S. 90, 44 S.Ct. 244, 68 L.Ed. 574. Pp. (c) The interventors' counsel's statement during trial that the Cuban Government and the interventors denied liabili......
-
Knox v. Palestine Liberation Organization
...rights in property ... upon the basis of these decrees."); The Gul Djemal, 296 F. 563, 564 (S.D.N.Y.1920), aff'd, 264 U.S. 90, 95, 44 S.Ct. 244, 68 L.Ed. 574 (1924); Restatement (Third) § 204; see generally Stanley Lubman, The Unrecognized Government in American Courts: Upright v. Mercury B......
-
Banco Nacional Cuba v. Sabbatino, 16
...on the theory that under such circumstances comity did not require the granting of immunity. The case was affirmed, 264 U.S. 90, 44 S.Ct. 244, 68 L.Ed. 574, but on another 12. The doctrine that nonrecognition precludes suit by the foreign government in every circumstance has been the subjec......