The Noddleburn

Decision Date08 February 1887
Citation30 F. 142
PartiesTHE NODDLEBURN.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Oregon

Syllabus by the Court

The district courts have cognizance of torts committed on the high seas, when the parties, or the vessel are found within their jurisdiction, without reference to the nationality of either.

The court may in its discretion take, or decline this jurisdiction, in the case of a controversy between foreigners; and its action in this respect will be followed on appeal, unless it plainly appears to the appellate court that such discretion has been wrongly exercised.

On the evidence, the findings of the district court, that the injury to the libelant was caused, without his fault, by a defective crane-line, which defect was known to the master, affirmed and the damages given therefor allowed, with interest and costs.

Edward N. Deady, for libelant.

C. E S. Wood, for claimant.

SAWYER J.

The bark Noddleburn is a British vessel, and the claimant, master, and libelant are British subjects. Although the point as to the jurisdiction of the court over the subject-matter does not appear to have been much relied on in the district court, it is quite earnestly pressed here. Under the authorities cited by the district judge, and the reasoning found in them, I think there can be little doubt that the court had jurisdiction. All actions for injuries ex delicto to the person, and actions on contracts, are transitory, and may generally be maintained wherever the parties may be found, whether in the country where the cause of action arose or elsewhere.

This suit is of that nature, upon a cause for which the ship as well as the master is liable. The cause of action arose upon the high seas, and it is a case of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. The parties, at the time of the commencement of the suit, were all within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, and the statutes of the United States confer jurisdiction 'of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. ' Both the subject-matter and the parties were; therefore, at the time of filing the libel, within the jurisdiction of the district court. Bernhard v. Creene, 3 Sawy. 230; The Belgenland, 114 U.S. 355, 5 S.Ct. 860.

But, there being no treaty stipulations controlling the matter, the cases cited also recognize the principle that where a cause of suit of this kind arises upon the high seas, between subjects of a foreign nation, it is a matter of sound discretion with the court, depending upon the circumstances of the particular case, whether it will exercise or decline to exercise jurisdiction. The Belgenland, 114 U.S. 364, 5 S.Ct. 860. Says the court in this case:

'But, although the courts will use a discretion about assuming a jurisdiction of controversies between foreigners in cases arising beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the country to which the courts belong, yet where such controversies are communis juris, that is, where they arise under the common law of nations, special ground should appear to induce the court to deny its aid to a foreign suitor when it has jurisdiction of the ship or party charged. The existence of
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Mahnich v. Southern Co
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • January 31, 1944
    ... ... The Noddleburn, D.C., 28 F. 855, affirmed 30 F. 142; The Neptuno, D.C., 30 F. 925; The Frank and Willie, D.C., 45 F. 494; The Julia Fowler, D.C., 49 F. 277; Wm. Johnson & Co. v. Johansen, 5 Cir., 86 F. 886; and see The Columbia, D.C., 124 F. 745; The Lyndhurst, D.C., 149 F. 900. But later cases in this and other ... ...
  • Canada Malting Co v. Paterson Steamships British Empire Grain Co v. Same Starnes v. Same
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • April 11, 1932
    ... ... Couch (D. C.) 40 F. 176; The Walter D. Wallet (D. C.) 66 F. 1011, 1013; The Lamington (D. C.) 87 F. 752, 757; The Knappingsborg (D. C.) 26 F.(2d) 935, 937. See, also, Bolden v. Jensen (D. C.) 70 F. 505, 509. Compare Bernhard v. Creene, 3 Sawy. 230, 234, Fed. Cas. No. 1,349; The Noddleburn (C. C.) 30 F. 142, 143; The Troop (D. C.) 118 F. 769, 772 ... 5 The only case supporting the position of the petitioners which has been called to our attention is The Apurimac (D. C.) 7 F.(2d) 741, 742, involving an action by a foreign seaman for injuries sustained on a foreign vessel lying in ... ...
  • THE HANNA NIELSEN
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington
    • April 24, 1928
    ... ... Panama R. R. Co. v. Napier Shipping Co., 166 U. S. 280, 284, 285, 17 S. Ct. 572, 41 L. Ed. 1004; The Troop (C. C. A.) 128 F. 856, affirming (D. C.) 118 F. 769; The Noddleburn (C. C.) 30 F. 142. While the case decided was one of collision upon the high seas, the court, in The Belgenland, 114 U. S. 355, 367, 5 S. Ct. 860, 865 (29 L. Ed. 152) quotes with approval the following statement of Dr. Lushington in the Johann Friederich, 1 Wm. Rob. 35: ...         "* * * ... ...
  • Pouppirt v. Elder Dempster Shipping
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • March 28, 1903
    ... ... while it is true that the District Court has discretion, ... apart from statute or treaty, to accept or decline ... jurisdiction of an admiralty suit in rem, for a maritime tort ... committed at sea, and brought between foreigners or against a ... foreign vessel (The Noddleburn (C.C.) 30 F. 142; The City of ... Carlisle (D.C.) 39 F. 807, 5 L.R.A. 52; The Belgenland, 114 ... U.S. 355, 365, 5 Sup.Ct. 860, 29 L.Ed. 152), still this is ... not true of a case like the present one, and, if true, the ... discretion should not be exercised to decline the ... jurisdiction. In ... ...
  • 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