Pfeil v. United States
| Decision Date | 17 January 1923 |
| Citation | 287 F. 265 |
| Parties | PFEIL et al. v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
On Reargument, February 14, 1923.
George Pfeil, of New York City, for libelants.
Ralph C. Greene, U.S. Atty., of Brooklyn, N.Y., appearing specially, and John Kennedy White, of Buffalo, N.Y., and John Raymond Stewart, of Watervliet, N.Y., Sp. Asst. U.S. Attys.
This is a motion to dismiss exceptions and exceptive allegations to the libel filed herein. On November 8, 1922, the libel was filed, seeking to recover for salvage by reason of services performed by the libelants in connection with the steamship Wampum, which was taken in tow by the steamship West Segovia on November 20, 1920, en route from Dansig to the port of New York. The libelants are the master and members of the crew of the West Segovia. The United States is the owner of both vessels.
The first exception to the libel is based upon its failure to set forth that the steamship Wampum, at the time the libel herein was filed, was found within the jurisdiction of the Eastern district of New York. The exceptive allegations are three in number. (1) That the Wampum was not found within the jurisdiction of the Eastern district of New York on the date on which the libel was filed. (2) That the steamship in question, at the time the libel was filed, was not employed as a merchant vessel, having been withdrawn therefrom on January 18, 1921. (3) Before the libel was filed the libelants, together with other members of the crew of the steamship West Segovia, were paid in full and executed releases for the services rendered by them to the steamship Wampum.
With respect to the exceptions the libel alleges that the vessel is, or during the currency of process will be, within the jurisdiction of the court. While this allegation in the alternative is quite permissible in an ordinary action in rem, in which the court acquires jurisdiction by the service of process upon the vessel involved, the present action is brought under a special statute, in which no arrest of the vessel is contemplated, but jurisdiction is acquired by service of a copy of the libel on the United States attorney for the district in which the action is brought and on the Attorney General of the United States. The vessel must be within the district when the libel is filed. The law appears to be settled by the case of Cunard Steamship Line v United...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jentry v. United States
...In the absence of objection by libelant, I shall assume these to be facts which should be judicially noticed. Pfeil et al. v. United States, D.C.E.D.N.Y.1923, 287 F. 265; The Seminole, D.C.E.D.N.Y.1890, 42 F. 924; cf. The Rosalia, 2 Cir., 1920, 264 F. 285, 289. If the ships on which libelan......
-
Suspine v. Compania Transatlantica Centroamericana
...and exceptive allegations were overruled in that case. And the practice has been permitted in the absence of objection. Pfeil v. United States, D.C., 287 F. 265. It was, however, regarded with disfavor in The Henry S. Grove, D.C., 283 F. 1019, but the weight of authority encourages the prac......
-
Schnell v. United States
...cases where no objection to the practice of considering "exceptive allegations" was interposed in cases like this (Pfeil v. United States, D.C.E.D. N.Y., 1923, 287 F. 265), but libelants in the present case do object strenuously, even though they have filed a cross-affidavit embodying an ap......