Dagounakis v. The Santa Madre, 7935.

• Decision Date: 21 September 1959
• Docket Number: No. 7935.,7935.
• Citation: 183 F. Supp. 54
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
• Parties: Demetrios DAGOUNAKIS, Libellant, v. THE SANTA MADRE and St. John Shipping & Trading Corporation, Respondents.

183 F. Supp. 54

Demetrios DAGOUNAKIS, Libellant, v. THE SANTA MADRE and St. John Shipping & Trading Corporation, Respondents.

No. 7935.

United States District Court E. D. Virginia, Norfolk Division.

September 21, 1959.

Bangel, Bangel & Bangel, Stanley Bangel, Portsmouth, Va., for libellant.

Jett, Sykes & Coupland, Roy L. Sykes, Norfolk, Va., for respondents.

WALTER E. HOFFMAN, District Judge.

This action in admiralty was filed by the libellant on February 28, 1958, at which time the S.S. Santa Madre was attached within the jurisdiction of this Court. Thereupon it appears from the file that Mr. Anninos, representing the libellant, was given a satisfactory letter of undertaking by Mr. Henry E. Howell, Jr., in behalf of the respondents, and the attachment was released pursuant to a letter written by counsel for the libellant.

On March 11, 1958, the respondents filed a motion to dismiss the proceeding and also their answer; the motion to dismiss being grounded on the fact that the Court had no jurisdiction. Treating that motion to dismiss more properly as a motion to decline jurisdiction, the Court heard the matter at a later date and denied the motion. A claim was filed on March 20, 1958, by the master of the Santa Madre. The matter came before the Court at a pretrial conference on December 22, 1958, at which time the record indicates that Mr. Anninos and Mr. Sykes were present. The motion to dismiss or motion to decline jurisdiction was scheduled for hearing on February 20, 1959, and the case was set for trial on its merits on June 25, 1959.

By order dated February 25, 1959, the motion to decline jurisdiction was overruled. From the evidence taken today, which is pursuant to a verbal motion, I assume, of the libellant, to enter a decree pursuant to a settlement agreed upon by counsel, there are indications that initially there was some discussion between Mr. Anninos and Mr. Howell, then of the firm of Jett, Sykes and Howell, that the case could perhaps be settled for as low as $4,500 or $5,000. These negotiations were as far back as March of 1958, and apparently an offer to settle the case for either $4,500 or $5,000 was renewed in November of 1958.

According to the letter from Mr. Anninos to Mr. Howell, under date of November 4, 1958, it was understood that the offer to settle for $5,000 would remain open only for a few days. While this offer was not withdrawn by letter, the evidence indicates that Mr. Howell was notified that the offer had been withdrawn as no action was taken thereon; the only action taken being a letter from Mr. Howell to John C. Monroe, Incorporated, under date of November 19, 1958, which is Respondent's Exhibit No. 1, which states that there had been an agreement to settle the case of $4,500 conditioned that the offer be accepted by the end of the then current week.

According to the evidence, nothing was heard until the latter part of January or the early part of February, at which time Mr. Sykes stated that he received from his principals two checks, one in the sum of $4,500 for the case in controversy and the other in the sum of $750 for another case.

Mr. Anninos accepted the $750 for the other case, but stated that his offer of $4,500 was no longer effective as to the present case.

The matter, as indicated, was set for...