Haesen v. United States, A-17956.

• Decision Date: 14 June 1946
• Docket Number: No. A-17956.,A-17956.
• Parties: HAESEN v. UNITED STATES et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

66 F. Supp. 759

HAESEN v. UNITED STATES et al.

No. A-17956.

District Court, E. D. New York.

June 14, 1946.

Milton N. Redman, of New York City, for libelant.

T. Vincent Keogh, U. S. Atty., of Brooklyn, N. Y. (Kirlin, Campbell, Hickox & Keating, of New York City, of counsel), for respondents.

BYERS, District Judge.

Exceptions to amended libel in a cause under the Suits in Admiralty Act of March 9, 1920, 46 U.S.C.A. § 741 et seq., upon the ground as stated in respondents' brief "that said amended libel does not state facts sufficient to show that this suit may be brought against the United States of America in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York".

The original libel was filed in that Court on August 8, 1945, and alleged (Art. First) that "the libelant was and is a citizen of Belgium and at the time of this accident was a resident of the State of New Jersey and is now a resident of the State of New York", and (Art. Fourteenth) "That all and singular the foregoing matters are true and within the Admiralty and Maritime jurisdiction of the United States and this Honorable Court * * *."

Answer was filed September 24, 1945, containing a denial of information, etc., as to the allegations of the First Article and denying the matters contained in the Fourteenth.

Thus the issue of jurisdiction would have required proof at the trial.

Interrogatories were filed by respondents on October 31, 1945, and Answers, verified January 28, 1946, were filed on February 16th. As to Interrogatory Second (a) and (g), the libelant stated his then present address in Forest Hills (Queens County, New York) while it had been at 354 West 22nd Street, Manhattan, New York, from November, 1943, until May, 1945, whereby the respondent was apprised that the sole jurisdictional assertion in the libel (since nothing was said concerning the whereabouts of the vessel on which the libelant said he was injured) was deficient so far as the Southern District was concerned. Indeed it elsewhere appears that the libelant's correct residence had been stated in a letter to respondents' proctors, dated August 9, 1945, which may explain the denials pleaded in the Answer, to which reference has been made.

A motion was then made, noticed for February 15, 1946, by libelant, for an order changing the venue of the action to this Court, which was granted by Judge Conger on May 1st, the order being dated May 15th.

Separately, a motion was noticed for April 8th, for leave to amend the libel by alleging libelant's then correct residential address (as above stated) and that prior to August 8, 1945 (the filing date of the original libel) the S. S. Exterminator, on which the libelant was a seaman at the time of his injury as alleged, had been "removed" (from what place is not stated) to Hampton Roads where she was scrapped and demolished; and the amendments were consented to in open court.

The Exceptions raise the question of jurisdiction of the Court in which the cause was laid, since the libelant did not reside in...