Applewhaite v. SS SUNPRINCESS

• Decision Date: 13 January 1956
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 1150-55.
• Citation: 136 F. Supp. 769,1956 AMC 676
• Parties: Maple APPLEWHAITE et al., Libellants, v. S. S. SUNPRINCESS et al., Respondents.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

136 F. Supp. 769

1956 AMC 676

Maple APPLEWHAITE et al., Libellants, v. S. S. SUNPRINCESS et al., Respondents.

Civ. A. No. 1150-55.

United States District Court D. New Jersey.

January 13, 1956.

Shafter & Shafter, Herbert J. Kaplow, New York City, Jerome Yesko, Paterson, N. J., for libellants.

Steelman, Lafferty & Rowe, Richard F. McMahon, Jr., Newark, N. J., Edwin K. Reid, New York City, of counsel, for respondent, Saguenay Terminals, Ltd.

MEANEY, District Judge.

Libellants are the representatives and survivors of ten seamen who lost their lives while serving as crewmen aboard the "S. S. Geologist" when that ship collided with the "S. S. Sunprincess" on the high seas. Saguenay Terminals, Ltd., a foreign corporation, alleged not to be doing business in New Jersey, was, apparently, bareboat charterer of the "S. S. Sunprincess."

This action was instituted, with Saguenay as one of the respondents, by serving the master of the "M/S Vivita" with a citation in personam with a writ of foreign attachment and with a libel in personam praying for a writ of attachment. The complaint alleges that Saguenay is the owner of the "Vivita" but there is no dispute at this time that Saguenay was merely a time charterer of the vessel, the owner being Limited Company Uglands Ownery, Fjere, a Norwegian Corporation. The goods on board the vessel were not owned by Saguenay. They were being carried by Saguenay under what might be termed subcharter arrangements with third parties.

Saguenay, appearing specially to contest the jurisdiction of the court, obtained on December 21, 1955, an order to show cause (1) why an order should not be entered vacating the writ of attachment; (2) why an order should not be entered holding libellants and their proctors liable for loss, damages, expenses and attorneys' fees; and (3) why an order should not be entered restraining any suit by libellants in personam by writ of foreign attachment until disposition of this application. Hearing was had on January 9, 1956.

Admiralty Rule 2, 28 U.S.C.A., provides that mesne process in suits in personam shall be by monition in the nature of summons or by simple warrant of arrest in the nature of a capias; "in either case with a clause therein to attach his goods and chattels, or credits and effects in the hands of the garnishees named in the libel * * * if said respondent shall not be found in the district."

The question to be determined at this juncture is whether the motor ship "Vivita" may properly be attached under this rule. A similar situation was involved in the case of McGahern v. Koppers Coal Co., 3 Cir., 1940, 108 F.2d 652 There it was argued that a charterer is pro hac vice owner of the vessel chartered and the vessel is to be treated as the charterer's property for the purposes of the rule. But the court in that case held that while a charterer is for many purposes treated as owner pro hac vice, no title passes to the...