THE KOTKAS, 10597.
Citation | 135 F.2d 917 |
Decision Date | 22 May 1943 |
Docket Number | No. 10597.,10597. |
Parties | THE KOTKAS. ESTONIAN STATE CARGO & PASSENGER S. S. LINE et al. v. KAIV. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
Charles Recht and Paul J. Kern, both of New York City, and R. A. Baker, of Jacksonville, Fla., for appellants.
Wm. M. Taliaferro, of Tampa, Fla., for appellee.
Before SIBLEY, McCORD, and WALLER, Circuit Judges.
The appeal is from a final decree dismissing a libel by which appellants sought possession of the "S. S. Kotkas", also known as the "Farida". Upon dismissal of the libel the ship was released to its Master. Appeal was taken without the filing of a supersedeas bond, and it appears that the vessel is now beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the court. There is now no subject-matter upon which the judgment of this Court could operate to give relief to appellant. The case is, therefore, dismissed; appellant to pay costs. Canal Steel Works, Inc. v. One Drag Line Dredge, 5 Cir., 48 F.2d 212, 213. Appellant contends, however, that the libel was not only in rem but also in personam, against the Master, and that the court did not lose jurisdiction by departure of the res. A review of the record discloses no personal service upon the Master. Cf. The Florida, 5 Cir., 133 F.2d 719.
Appeal dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. AN ART. OF DRUG... NEOTERRAMYCIN, ETC.
......denied, 323 U.S. 728, 65 S.Ct. 63, 89 L.Ed. 584 (1944); The Kotkas, 135 F.2d 917 (5th Cir. 1943); Canal Steel Works, Inc. v. One Drag Line Dredge, 48 F.2d 212, 213 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 284 U.S. 647, 52 S.Ct. 29, ......
-
Point Landing, Inc. v. Alabama Dry Dock & Shipbuild. Co.
......One Drag Line Dredge, 5 Cir., 1931, 48 F.2d 212, 1931 A.M.C. 1053; The Kotkas, 5 Cir., 1943, 135 F.2d 917, 1943 A.M.C. 831, and The Manuel Arnus, 5 Cir., 1944, 141 F.2d 585, 1944 A. M.C. 417, certiorari denied 323 U.S. 728, 65 ......
-
Inland Credit Corp. v. M/T Bow Egret
......1958) (finding jurisdiction present because res proceeds were still in registry of Court); The Kotkas, 135 F.2d 917 (5th Cir. 1943). Though our Court has not recently decided a case on this basis, we have adverted to the general rule that removal of ......
- Heine v. United States, 9394