IN RE THE ATLANTIC COAST, 193.

• Decision Date: 27 August 1954
• Docket Number: No. 193.,193.
• Citation: 140 F. Supp. 367
• Parties: THE ATLANTIC COAST. Evangelos PAPANIKOLAOU, Libellant-Petitioner, v. ATLANTIC FREIGHTERS, Limited, and S. Livanos Ship Brokers, Ltd., both foreign corporations or associations, as owners and/or operators of the Liberian Steamship Atlantic Coast, Respondents.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia

140 F. Supp. 367

THE ATLANTIC COAST.

Evangelos PAPANIKOLAOU, Libellant-Petitioner, v. ATLANTIC FREIGHTERS, Limited, and S. Livanos Ship Brokers, Ltd., both foreign corporations or associations, as owners and/or operators of the Liberian Steamship Atlantic Coast, Respondents.

No. 193.

United States District Court E. D. Virginia, Newport News Division.

August 27, 1954.

Morewitz & Morewitz, Newport News, Va., for libellant.

Hughes, Little & Seawell, Norfolk, Va., for respondents.

WILKIN, District Judge (By Designation).

This cause was heard on respondents' exceptions to the jurisdiction. The libellant sues for damages resulting from personal injury, and for maintenance and cure, and wages. His claims arose out of his services aboard the Atlantic Coast, a Liberian vessel owned by a Panamanian corporation or association. Libellant was employed in England, was injured aboard the Atlantic Coast at Antwerp, Belgium, and was discharged or put ashore in England. Proctor for the libellant says no arrangements were made for the seaman's repatriation or maintenance and cure. Proctors for respondents, however, say the libellant was repatriated to his home in Greece and is now residing there. It was admitted by his Proctor that he is not in this country. It is apparent that this is a suit entirely between foreigners, arising out of occurrences abroad, and not involving any laws of the United States.

The law is well settled that Admiralty Courts have jurisdiction of admiralty suits between foreigners when proper service can be had or property attached. It is discretionary, however, with the court whether it will accept such jurisdiction. Some good reason for accepting jurisdiction should be made to appear, such as convenience of obtaining evidence, or the adjustment of wages upon discharge of a seaman from a foreign vessel in an American port. When, however, a cause of action has arisen abroad and witnesses are abroad, the court will ordinarily not accept jurisdiction of a suit between foreigners.

Proctor for libellant cites Sections 596 and 597 of Title 46, U.S.C.A., but those sections do not govern the facts of this case. Other authorities cited by libellant are cases where expediency and justice required that the court assume jurisdiction. Considerations of expediency in this case would prompt suit in England, Belgium, or Greece, and there is no showing that libellant could not obtain justice in such countries.

When suit was instituted here, Proctors for r...