SKIBS A/S ABACO, A., A. & N. v. Ardeshir B. Cursetjee & Sons

• Decision Date: 17 June 1955
• Citation: 133 F. Supp. 465
• Parties: SKIBS A/S ABACO, ARUBA, ASTREA & NORUEGA, as owners of The HOEGH TRADER, Libelants, v. ARDESHIR B. CURSETJEE & SONS, Ltd., Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

133 F. Supp. 465

SKIBS A/S ABACO, ARUBA, ASTREA & NORUEGA, as owners of The HOEGH TRADER, Libelants, v. ARDESHIR B. CURSETJEE & SONS, Ltd., Respondent.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

June 17, 1955.

Kirlin, Campbell & Keating, New York City, for movant, Isthmian Steamship Co. Vernon S. Jones, New York City, of counsel.

Haight, Gardner, Poor & Havens, New York City, for libelants. James M. Estabrook, New York City, of counsel.

DAWSON, District Judge.

This is a motion by Isthmian Steamship Company to vacate, pursuant to Rule 21 of the Admiralty Rules of the United States District Court of New York, a warrant of foreign attachment upon the Isthmian Steamship Company, which warrant attached funds that, it is alleged, are owed by Isthmian Steamship Company to the respondent.

This action stems from an injury received by a longshoreman aboard the S. S. Hoegh Trader in the course of discharging the vessel at Brooklyn, New York, in or about April, 1954. Thereafter, on or about September 15, 1954, the longshoreman commenced an action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Kings, against the vessel S.S. Hoegh Trader and its agent, a New York corporation, which action is known as Spennato v. The S.S. Hoegh Trader and Kerr Steamship Co., Inc. In that action, process did not issue against the vessel, for it could not in a proceeding in the State Courts. Nor have the libelants here, the owners of the vessel, ever been made a party to that action.

The papers submitted on the motion show that on April 4, 1955, a libel and complaint was filed in this Court so as to commence this action; that the said libel was drawn in the form of a contingent suit seeking indemnity in the event that libelant is made a party to the aforementioned action in the State Court and a judgment is obtained against it. On April 5, an amended libel and complaint was filed seeking similar relief. The amended libel and complaint alleged that the respondent had assets in this jurisdiction, in the form of credits, in the hands of various steamship companies, one of whom is the movant here, and sought a writ of foreign attachment on the ground that the respondent was a foreign corporation which did not have an officer, office, or place of business within this jurisdiction.

The amended libel alleges that the plaintiff in the action in the State Court was engaged in discharging cargo which had been loaded by the respondent in Bombay, India, and that control of that area of the ship had been given to the respondent; that it was the duty of the respondent to act with reasonable care and prudence and properly to supervise the work so as to avoid the creation of dangerous conditions, and so as to eliminate such dangerous conditions that might be discovered by the exercise of reasonable care and inspection; that the respondent failed to discharge the duties imposed upon it with reasonable care and diligence in that it failed properly to supervise and direct the performance of the work, failed properly to use the appliances and parts of the vessel, and failed to take adequate precautions for the safety of personnel who might subsequently be required to work on the vessel, and as a result therefrom, the plaintiff in the action in the State Court sustained the injuries and damages referred to.

The amended libel goes on to allege that if the plaintiff in the State Court action suffered any damages and is entitled to any recovery against the S.S. Hoegh Trader, that it is solely due to the fault and neglect of the respondent and that, therefore, the libelants are entitled to indemnity from the respondent.

The amended libel alleges additionally that the libelant is a Norwegian corporation, and respondent, an Indian entity.

It would thus appear from the papers that this is a controversy between a Norwegian corporation and an entity existing under the laws of India with respect to acts that occurred in India in which the respondent seeks to attach funds accrued or accruing to the Indian respondent for services rendered in India to Isthmian Steamship Company. Other than these facts, it would appear that the only other contact of libelant with this jurisdiction is the personal injury action that has been commenced in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Kings, against libelant's ship, the S.S. Hoegh Trader, and its agent, and in which libelant contemplates it will eventually be made a party.

Movant seeks to vacate the order of attachment on two grounds:

(1) That a writ of foreign attachment should not issue as against a third party whose relationship to the controversy is merely peripheral where an action has not been commenced against a libelant, for the claim is speculative and conjectural, and the libel therefore premature.

(2) That the action is between foreign entities and relies for recovery on a contract made in India and upon acts of omission and commission which took place in India.

Additionally, it would appear that the movant is also asking this Court to dismiss the libel because of vagueness and indefiniteness and because the action is one in which the Court, in its discretion,...