American Potato Corporation v. Boca Grande S. S. Co.
| Decision Date | 28 June 1916 |
| Citation | 233 F. 542 |
| Parties | AMERICAN POTATO CORP. v. BOCA GRANDE S.S. CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Howard M. Long, of Philadelphia, Pa., for libelant.
White White & Taulane, of Philadelphia, Pa., and Gifford, Hobbs & Beard, of New York City, for respondent.
This is a motion to set aside the seizure of the coasting steamer New Orleans under a writ of foreign attachment. The vessel belongs to the Boca Grande Steamship Company, and was seized in the port of Philadelphia in a suit in personam brought for the breach of an executory contract to carry several cargoes of potatoes. The libelant was obliged to ship the potatoes by rail, and sues to recover damages for the steamer's failure to carry. The merits of the dispute are not involved the only point to be considered is, whether under the facts in evidence a writ of foreign attachment could lawfully be levied in this district.
The court has jurisdiction of the subject-matter, but jurisdiction of the steamship company could only be obtained by direct service of process on the respondent if the latter could be found within the district. It is a Delaware corporation, whose main office is in New Orleans, and nothing before the court shows the existence of an office in the Eastern district of Pennsylvania. Apparently, therefore, direct service of process on the company could be made only in Delaware or in Louisiana. But the libelant was not obliged to go to either district, if lawful service could be made elsewhere; and it is well settled, that in admiralty such service may be made by attaching a respondent's property in any other federal district than the district of his residence, so as to compel him to appear and defend. Atkins v. Disintegrating Co., 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 272, 21 L.Ed. 841. And of course the ordinary monition may issue in any district where the respondent maintains a statutory agent upon whom process may be served. In re Louisville Underwriters, 134 U.S. 488, 10 Sup.Ct. 587, 33 L.Ed. 991. The steamship company maintains no such agent in Philadelphia, but the vessel was here, and was duly seized by a procedure formally regular in all particulars.
The seizure is now attacked, however, on the ground that the company itself was within the district, and therefore that no foreign attachment could lawfully issue or be levied. This position rests on the following facts: Capt. Lawrence, the master...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Federazione Italiana DCA v. Mandask Compania DV
...D.C.Canal Zone, 1933 A.M.C. 1057; Benedict on Admiralty (6th ed.) Vol. 2, Sec. 289, p. 351. See, also, American Potato Corporation v. Boca Grande S. S. Co., D.C. E.D.Pa., 233 F. 542; Belgian Mission for Economic Cooperation v. Zarati Steamship Co., Ltd., D.C.S.D.N.Y., 90 F.Supp. 741; Stefan......
-
Seawind Compania, SA v. Crescent Line, Inc.
...of process." United States v. Cia Naviera Continental S. A., 178 F.Supp. 561, 563 (S.D.N.Y.1959); see American Potato Corp. v. Boca Grande S.S. Co., 233 F. 542 (E.D.Pa. 1916); Insurance Co. of North America v. Canadian American Navigation Co. (The Melmay), 1933 A.M.C. Considering the second......
-
CHILEAN LINE INC v. United States
...178 F.Supp. 561, 563 (S.D.N.Y. 1959). See Seawind Compania v. Crescent Line, Inc., supra, 320 F.2d at 582; American Potato Corp. v. Boca Grande S.S. Co., 233 F. 542 (E.D.Pa.1916). Here, this respondent is a New York corporation and as such, in accordance with concepts of due process, is sub......
-
ROBINS DRY DOCK & R. CO. v. Consolidated Fisheries Co.
...R. Co. v. Foreman (C. C. A.) 244 F. 353; Doe v. Springfield Boiler & Mfg. Co. (C. C. A.) 104 F. 684; American Potato Corporation v. Boca Grande S. S. Co. (D. C.) 233 F. 542. It is impossible to determine with any degree of precision from the conflicting papers whether John A. Hayes was on J......