Republic of China v. American Exp. Co.

• Decision Date: 16 October 1952
• Citation: 108 F. Supp. 169
• Parties: REPUBLIC OF CHINA et al. v. AMERICAN EXP. CO., Inc.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

108 F. Supp. 169

REPUBLIC OF CHINA et al. v. AMERICAN EXP. CO., Inc.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

October 16, 1952.

Burke & Burke, New York City, for plaintiffs, J. B. Burke, and J. F. Taylor, New York City, of counsel.

Carter, Ledyard & Milburn, New York City, for defendant, W. S. Gaud, Jr., New York City, of counsel.

SUGARMAN, District Judge.

The Republic of China and Directorate General of Postal Remittances and Savings Bank (hereinafter called Republic) brought suit in this court against the American Express Company, Inc. (hereinafter called Express) for a fund, which Republic had deposited with Express. Express defended by asking that the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China and others (hereinafter called Central), claimants to the fund, be interpleaded and that Express, after depositing the fund in court be discharged. That motion was granted. 95 F.Supp. 740, 744.

An appeal from the order granting the motion was taken by Republic. On the motion of Express that appeal was dismissed. 2 Cir., 190 F.2d 334. After the entry by the district judge of the "determination" alluded to in 190 F.2d 334, and of a judgment for interpleader, an appeal was taken therefrom which resulted in an affirmance. 2 Cir., 195 F.2d 230.

Prior to the first appeal, Express paid into the registry of this court, pursuant to the original district court order, the sum involved. Shortly after Republic took its first appeal from the order, an employee of Express mailed, to points outside of the United States, copies of the order of interpleader, Republic's complaint, Express' answer and counterclaim and a letter of explanation to each of the persons named in the order of interpleader except "John Doe" and "Richard Roe", by whom was intended any one, other than those specifically named having a claim against the fund.

In the opinion of the district court granting the interpleader, 95 F.Supp. 744, the questions of proper venue and process were deliberately reserved for the second stage of litigation. It was indicated in that opinion that in the second stage, the deposit of the fund in the registry of this court might recast the litigation into an action in rem in which jurisdiction against non-residents not otherwise obtainable, might be obtained under § 1655 of Title 28 U.S.C.A. Notwithstanding that indication, Republic served no notice of any nature whatsoever, whereas Express merely mailed the notices above referred to, excluding "...