Piascik v. British Ministry of War Transport

• Decision Date: 23 December 1943
• Citation: 54 F. Supp. 487
• Parties: PIASCIK v. BRITISH MINISTRY OF WAR TRANSPORT.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

54 F. Supp. 487

PIASCIK v. BRITISH MINISTRY OF WAR TRANSPORT.

District Court, S. D. New York.

December 23, 1943.

Jacob Rassner, of New York City, for plaintiff.

Reid, Cunningham & Freehill, of New York City, for defendant.

CAFFEY, District Judge.

The defendant, appearing specially, asks this court to dismiss the action and to vacate and quash the return of service of the summons and complaint.

The ground on which the motion rests is that the defendant is a constituted department of the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, a friendly foreign sovereign (hereinafter called the United Kingdom). The procedure by which the claim was brought before this court is, in substance, that followed in Ex parte Republic of Peru, 318 U.S. 578, 581, 582, 63 S.Ct. 793, 87 L.Ed. 1014.

The Ambassador to this country representing the United Kingdom presented to the Secretary of State of the United States a note in which he said that at all the times mentioned in the complaint the defendant was and now is a duly constituted department of the Government of the United Kingdom and requested that the Secretary of State accept as true the statements of fact contained in the note and cause to be communicated to this court, through the Attorney General of the United States, a statement that the Secretary of State recognizes and allows the claim of immunity of the defendant from suits in the courts of the United States and desires that the process in this action against the defendant be vacated and quashed.

The Secretary of State conveyed to the Attorney General a certified copy of the note sent to him by the Ambassador and requested that the Attorney General forward the certified copy of the note to the Attorney General's representative and instruct him to present such certified copy to the court and state to the court that the Department of State recognizes the defendant as a duly constituted department of the British Government and, therefore, entitled to immunity from judicial process in the courts of the United States.

A Special Assistant to the Attorney General, acting in conformity with the instructions of the Attorney General, accordingly presented to this court a certified copy of the note addressed to the Secretary by the Ambassador. At the same time the Attorney General's representative prayed the court to grant the relief hereinbefore described.

It is sufficient to cite one decision of the Supreme Court of the United States (Ex parte Republic of Peru, supra), which has directly dealt with the single question presented by the motion. In essence the Supreme Court has ruled that, under the circumstances that exist in the case at bar, this court is obligated to accept the decision of the executive branch of the Government with respect to the status of the British Ambassador and the status of the defendant. Inasmuch as the Secretary of State has officially...