Universal Transp. Co., Inc. v. Rederiaktiebolaget Amie

• Decision Date: 31 May 1916
• Parties: UNIVERSAL TRANSP. CO., Inc., v. REDERIAKTIEBOLAGET AMIE.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

263 F. 243

UNIVERSAL TRANSP. CO., Inc., v. REDERIAKTIEBOLAGET AMIE.

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

May 31, 1916

Kirlin Woolsey & Hickox, of New York City (John M. Woolsey, of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff.

Engel Bros., of New York City (Wm. J. Conlen, of Philadelphia, Pa and J. G. Engel, of New York City, of counsel), for defendant.

AUGUSTUS N. HAND, District Judge.

The plaintiff in this action heretofore filed a libel in admiralty in this court against the defendant and its ship Ada and attached the ship. The libel alleged a breach of a charter party by the defendant. Under that contract the Universal Transportation Company, Incorporated, had chartered the Ada from the defendant for six months, with an option to purchase at any time during that period and a privilege to apply all charter hire paid prior to the exercise of the option on account of the purchase price. The breach of the charter party alleged consisted in a withdrawal of the vessel and refusal to accept an instalment of charter hire, and also a refusal to tender a bill of sale of the vessel when requested and when the charterer was prepared to pay the balance of the purchase money. The damages demanded were for failure to deliver possession of the vessel during the balance of the charter period and for failure to deliver a bill of sale. Judge Smith, before whom the admiralty cause was tried, held that the owner of the Ada had broken the charter party by the withdrawal of the vessel, and that the charterer was entitled to damages for this breach. He also held that a court of admiralty was without jurisdiction to award damages for a breach of the contract of sale, and ordered a reference to ascertain damages caused by the unauthorized withdrawal of the vessel from charter hire.

Upon and by reason of such a state of the record the charterer brought this action at common law and attached the ship claiming damages for failure to deliver the vessel or a bill of sale thereof, which Judge Smith had held the court of admiralty was powerless to award. An attachment issued out of this court at common law, which the defendant moves to vacate on three grounds: (1) That this court cannot interfere with the possession of the admiralty court which has heretofore attached; (2) that the moving papers are defective; (3) that the right of action here asserted is inconsistent with the decree in admiralty already rendered, because that decree necessarily proceeded upon the assumption that the breach was for withdrawal from charter hire, a breach which could not exist, if the...