Rich v. Naviera Vacuba, SA
| Decision Date | 07 September 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 8448.,8448. |
| Parties | James RICH and Walter Precha, Libellants, and Nick Daratsakis, Intervening Libellant, Appellants, v. NAVIERA VACUBA S. A., and Republic of Cuba, Respondents, Appellees. MAYAN LINES S. A., Libellant, Appellant, v. REPUBLIC OF CUBA and THE M/V BAHIA DE NIPE et al., Respondents, Appellees. UNITED FRUIT SUGAR COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, Libellant, Appellant, v. 5,000 TONS OF SUGAR, in rem, now laden on board THE M/V BAHIA DE NIPE, now in Lynnhaven Roads, Virginia, and Augustin Albella, acting master, in personam, Respondents, Appellees. Jorge NAVARRO, Omar Parets, Jaime Merchan, Enrique Cardonne, Matias Barraza, Ricardo Alvarez, Jeronimo Mayordomo, Ramon Tocoronte, Juan Mazola, Everardo Amarante, Iluminado Leyva, Libellants, Appellants, v. THE M/V BAHIA DE NIPE, Respondent, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Abraham E. Freedman, Philadelphia, Pa. (Sidney Kelsey, Norfolk, Va., on brief), for appellants, Rich and Precha.
Edward L. Breeden, Jr., Norfolk, Va. (Robert R. MacMillan, Breeden, Howard & MacMillan, Norfolk, Va., and Cobb & Wright, New Orleans, La., on brief), for appellant, Mayan Lines, S. A.
Braden Vandeventer, Jr., Norfolk, Va., and Robert C. Barnard, Washington, D. C. (Vandeventer, Black, Meredith & Martin, Norfolk, Va., Morton M. Winston, and Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton, Washington, D. C., on brief), for appellant, United Fruit Sugar Co.
William H. Orrick, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen. (Morton Hollander, John G. Laughlin and Edward A. Groobert, Attorneys, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., on brief), for the United States of America.
Before SOBELOFF, Chief Judge, and SOPER and BRYAN, Circuit Judges.
The vessel Bahia de Nipe sailed on August 8, 1961, from Cuba with a cargo of 5,000 bags of sugar destined for a Russian port. When on August 17 the ship was about 300 miles east of Bermuda the master and ten of his crewmen put the rest of the crew under restraint, turned the vessel towards Hampton Roads, Virginia, and notified the Coast Guard of their intention to seek asylum in the United States. As they crossed the three-mile limit and neared the entrance to the Chesapeake Bay the vessel was met by the Coast Guard and taken to anchorage off Lynnhaven, Virginia.
These proceedings were begun on August 18 by the filing of a libel against the vessel on behalf of two longshoremen who had earlier recovered judgments against the Republic of Cuba and Naviera Vacuba, S. A. The latter owned the vessel before she was taken over by the revolutionary government of Cuba. Shortly thereafter another libel was filed against the ship and cargo by Mayan Lines, S. A. which had previously recovered judgment by consent in a state court of Louisiana in the sum of $500,000 against the Republic of Cuba. A third libel was filed against the cargo only by the United Fruit Sugar Company which claimed that the sugar belonged to it, having been unlawfully confiscated in Cuba by the revolutionary government. Libels for wages were also filed by the defecting master and the ten crew members.
Upon the institution of these suits in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at Norfolk, the Clerk, pursuant to law and the practice of the court, issued the customary in rem process and delivered the same to the United States Deputy Marshal to be served upon the ship. Service, however, was prevented by the Coast Guard, which purported to act "pursuant to orders" and in reliance upon the authority of 50 U.S. C.A. § 191. On being advised of this interference with the Marshal in the performance of his duties, the District Judge issued an order directed to the Captain of the Port and the Commander of the Coast Guard, requiring them to appear and to show cause why an order should not be entered permitting the Marshal to board the vessel to execute the writs.
A number of communications from and on behalf of the Secretary of State addressed to the Attorney General were presented to the court by the United States Attorney. While infelicitously expressed, we think these sufficiently set forth the requisites of a valid suggestion for the allowance of sovereign immunity.
Arguments extending over several days were heard by the District Court which then held that the Coast Guard and those who had directed it acted in excess of their authority in preventing the service of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chemical Natural Resources, Inc. v. Republic of Venezuela
...and dismissed the libel. The Court rejected all the arguments therein made, which were repeated by appellees in this case, and said (pp. 25, 26): vessel Lahai de Nipe sailed on August 8, 1961, from Cuba with a cargo of 5,000 bags of sugar destined for a Russian port. * * * 'The libellants a......
-
Flota Maritima Browning de Cuba v. Motor Vessel Ciudad
...S.Ct. 793; Compania Espanola De Navagacion Maritima, S.A. v. The Navemar, 303 U.S. 68, 74-75, 58 S.Ct. 432 (1938); Rich v. Naviera Vacuba, S.A., 295 F.2d 24, 26 (4 Cir. 1961). But conclusive for me is the law as enunciated and expounded by the Supreme Court in Berizzi Bros. Co. v. S.S. Pesa......
-
Rex v. Cia. Pervana De Vapores, S. A.
...v. President of India, 446 F.2d 1198 (2d Cir.) cert. denied, 404 U.S. 985, 92 S.Ct. 452, 30 L.Ed.2d 369 (1971); Rich v. Naviera Vacuba, S.A., 295 F.2d 24 (4th Cir. 1961). History thus conclusively demonstrates that actions against foreign sovereigns have never existed at common law. The rig......
-
Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Farr
...by the Executive is conclusive. Ex parte Republic of Peru, 318 U.S. 578, 63 S.Ct. 793, 87 L.Ed. 1014 (1943); Rich v. Naviera Vacuba, S. A., 295 F.2d 24 (4 Cir. 1961) (per curiam). The primacy that the Constitution delegates to the political branches in the field of foreign affairs dictates ......
-
Head of state immunity as sole executive lawmaking.
...489 F.2d 614, 618 (5th Cir. 1974). The second sentence would have astounded Chief Justice Marshall. See also Rich v. Naviera Vacuba S.A., 295 F.2d 24, 26 (4th Cir. 1961) ("We think that the doctrine of the separation of powers under our Constitution requires us to assume that all pertinent ......
-
PROPERTY/CIVIL PROCEDURE - FOREIGN EMBASSIES BEWARE: YOUR PROPERTY IN WASHINGTON D.C. MAY BE SUSCEPTIBLE TO ADVERSE JUDGMENTS - TIG INS. CO. V. REPUBLIC OF ARG., 967 F.3D 778 (D.C. CIR. 2020).
...be left to the courts for decision. Id. at 614. See also Rich v. Naviera Vacuba, S.A., 197 F. Supp 710 (E.D. Va. 1961), aff'd per curiam, 295 F.2d 24 (4th Cir. 1961) (exemplifying judicial adherence with State Department during Tate Letter). The case dealt with commercial business relating ......