Industrial Y Frutera Colombiana, SA v. The Brisk
| Decision Date | 15 April 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 13672.,13672. |
| Parties | INDUSTRIAL Y FRUTERA COLOMBIANA, S. A., v. THE BRISK et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Harry F. Stiles, Jr., New Orleans, La., Walter F. Rogers, Jacksonville, Fla., George B. Warburton, New York City, for appellant.
Reuben Ragland, Louis Kurz, Jacksonville, Fla., for appellees.
Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and HOLMES and STRUM, Circuit Judges.
Appellant libeled the motor vessel "Brisk" in the court below to recover the value of a cargo of bananas, the property of libellant, lost by spoilage due to the leaky condition of said vessel while being transported from the Republic of Columbia to New York City.
The trial court declined jurisdiction and dismissed the libel because all parties to the controversy are foreign nationals, libellant being a Columbian corporation, the claimant a Danish partnership. This appeal is from that order.
When libeled, the vessel was in the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court, having put in the harbor of Jacksonville, Florida, because of her leaky condition while proceeding from the Republic of Columbia to New York City.
The bananas were being transported by the vessel pursuant to a "Time Charter" executed by the parties in the City of New York, which provided, inter alia, that payments for hire of the vessel should be made in New York in United States currency; that all shipments should be made subject to the United States Carriage of Goods by Sea Act; that bills of lading covering cargoes shipped would be subject to the maritime laws of the United States and (Section 17) "that should any dispute arise between the owners and the charterers, the matter in dispute shall be referred to three persons at New York * * *; that their decision, or that of any two of them, shall be final, and for the purpose of enforcing any award this agreement may be made a rule of the court."
It is quite true, generally speaking, that the retention of jurisdiction of a suit in admiralty wholly between foreign nationals is discretionary with the district court, and that the exercise of its discretion will not ordinarily be disturbed.1 The district judge acted upon this rule in dismissing the libel.
Here, however, the facts are not only quite dissimilar to those involved in the cases just cited, but we also have a charter party which contains the above quoted provision as to arbitration of disputes. This being a case of typical admiralty jurisdiction, the arbitration provision of the charter falls squarely within the United States Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq. That Act provides that such an arbitration agreement shall be valid, enforceable, and cognizable in admiralty. Section 3 of the Act provides that when a suit is brought in any of the courts of the United States involving an issue which is referable to arbitration under such an agreement, the court "shall" on application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action until such arbitration has been made in accordance with the terms of the agreement. Section 4 permits a party aggrieved by the alleged failure of his opponent to arbitrate as agreed, to petition any federal court of appropriate jurisdiction, including courts of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
EAST, Inc. of Stamford, Conn. v. M/V ALAIA, Civ. A. No. 87-4931.
...time charter dispute to arbitration where the charterer apparently joined solely the vessel in rem. See Industrial y Frutera Colombiana, S.A. v. The Brisk, 195 F.2d 1015 (5th Cir.1952). To hold otherwise would make too much of the fiction of personification in in rem proceedings and would h......
-
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE, ETC. v. Marine Tankers Corp.
...See The Anaconda v. American Sugar Refining Co., 1944, 322 U.S. 42, 45, 64 S.Ct. 863, 88 L.Ed. 1117; Industrial y Frutera Colombiana S. A. v. The Brisk, 5 Cir., 1952, 195 F. 2d 1015. See also Kulukundis Shipping Co, S/A v. Amtorg Trading Corp., 2 Cir., 1942, 126 F.2d 2 A typewritten rider f......
-
Aaacon Auto Transport, Inc. v. Rosenbaum
...a 'special venue act' is invoked. (Baltimore & Ohio R.R. v. Kepner, 314 U.S. 44, 62 S.Ct. 6, 86 L.Ed. 28; Industrial Y Frutera Columbiana v. The Brisk, 5 Cir., 195 F.2d 1015; O'Connor v. Yardley Golf Club, D.C. 79 F.Supp. Finally, since a court will generally not compel one of its citizens ......
-
SEABOARD & CARIBBEAN TR. CORP. v. Hafen-Dampfschiffahrt
...otherwise not appealable, does not become so because the arbitration is to be outside the district. See Industrial Y Frutera Colombiana, S. A. v. The Brisk, 5th Cir. 1952, 195 F.2d 1015. It follows that the appeal from the order of March 1, 1963, must be dismissed for want of Left for dispo......