Fisser v. International Bank
| Citation | 164 F. Supp. 826 |
| Parties | Carl FISSER and Martha Fisser, copartners d/b/a Fisser & V. Doornum (on their own behalf and on behalf and for the benefit of any other party or parties who are or who may become interested, as their respective interests may ultimately appear), Libelants, v. INTERNATIONAL BANK, Respondent. |
| Decision Date | 15 May 1958 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Crowell, Rouse & Varian, New York City, for libelants, E. Curtis Rouse and George Vayda, New York City, of counsel.
Becker & Martin, New York City, for respondent, Emanuel Becker, New York City, of counsel.
On January 18, 1957, libelants' libel was filed, seeking damages for breach of a contract of affreightment. The damages sought were $3,000,000 and the libel was alleged to be brought by libelants "on their own behalf and on behalf and for the benefit of any other party or parties who are or may become interested therein, as their respective interests may ultimately appear." Libelants now move for permission to file an amended libel, changing the prayer for damages to $1,214,100 and alleging that suit is brought "with the consent and authority of and on behalf and for the benefit of themselves" and certain named German limited liability companies and a German joint venture. The putative amended libel also alleges that the contract of affreightment was entered into by libelants "on their own behalf as a chartering broker and on behalf and for the benefit of" the German entities.
Respondent opposes on the ground that "in admiralty, the party entitled to relief should always be made libelant * * *." Fretz v. J. C. Bull & Co., 1851, 12 How. 466, 468, 13 L.Ed. 1068. Respondent argues, therefore, that the libel was originally brought by the improper party and that, if the amendment is permitted, the effect will be that a new action will be commenced against it at a time when it is no longer amenable to service of process in this District. The rule of the Fretz case, however, as was recognized in the decision, does not obtain in "particular cases." 12 How. 468.1 One exception to that rule is the "well-recognized practice in the admiralty that the agent of an absent owner of cargo may assert in his own name his principal's right of action." Aunt Jemima Mills Co. v. Lloyd Royal Belge, 2 Cir., 1929, 34 F.2d 120, 121. See also, Cragin & Co. v. International S. S. Co., 2 Cir., 1926, 15 F.2d 263; Pipe v. The La Salle, D.C.S.D.N.Y. 1943, 49 F.Supp. 662.
Of course, both the agency, and the principals' consent to and authority for this suit, must be proven at the trial. National Interocean Corp. v. Emmons Coal Mining Corp., D.C.E.D.Pa.1921, 270 F. 997, 1000. And this will be so under both the original and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fisser v. International Bank
...opinion ruled that the libel was properly brought by the libelants on their behalf and for the benefit of their named principals. 164 F.Supp. 826. 3 Even assuming, arguendo, that a party can bind himself to a "written provision" for arbitration only by signing such a provision, still, based......
-
Fisser v. International Bank
...and 8 and may be maintained on behalf of the principals by libelant as agent. See opinion in this case by Palmieri, J., May 15, 1958, D.C., 164 F. Supp. 826. The sole issue to be determined on the summary trial under Section 4 is whether a contract was made between libelants and respondent;......
-
Martran Steamship Co. v. Aegean Tankers Limited
...270 F. 997. The law is settled that an agent may sue in admiralty on behalf of his principal. Fisser v. International Bank, D.C.S.D. N.Y.1958, 164 F.Supp. 826, 1958 A.M.C. 1426; Aunt Jemima Mills Co. v. Lloyd Royal Belge, 2 Cir., 1929, 34 F.2d 120, 121; Cragin & Co. v. International S. S. C......