Waltier v. Thomson
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | M. Vinson Hayes, New York City, for plaintiff |
| Citation | 189 F. Supp. 319 |
| Parties | Richard H. WALTIER, M.D., F.A.C.S., Plaintiff, v. Hubert W. P. THOMSON, individually and as Chief of the District of New York of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, Dominion of Canada [sic], and The Dominion of Canada, Defendant. |
| Decision Date | 06 December 1960 |
189 F. Supp. 319
Richard H. WALTIER, M.D., F.A.C.S., Plaintiff,
v.
Hubert W. P. THOMSON, individually and as Chief of the District of New York of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, Dominion of Canada sic, and The Dominion of Canada, Defendant.
United States District Court S. D. New York.
December 6, 1960.
M. Vinson Hayes, New York City, for plaintiff.
Sullivan & Cromwell, New York City, for Hon. A.D.P. Heeney, Inzer B. Wyatt, John W. Dickey, New York City, of counsel, amicus curiae.
S. Hazard Gillespie, Jr., New York City, Charles T. Beeching, Jr., New York City, of counsel, amicus curiae.
BICKS, District Judge.
Plaintiff is a physician and surgeon. At all times here material, the defendant Thomson was officer in charge of the Canadian Government Immigration Service at the Canadian Consulate General in the City of New York. Mr. Thomson was certified to the Department of State as an officer of Canada whose "official activities * * * include the interviewing of residents of the United States of America who might wish to immigrate to Canada. * * *"1
Plaintiff's complaint, as amended, alleges that the individual defendant herein made false statements which induced plaintiff to immigrate to Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Among the offending statements alleged are the following:
"You're a surgeon—don't worry about anything. There's an exam you must take to be licensed, which
is just a matter of form. Alberta is my favorite place—they have just discovered gas, oil, titanium and gold. You will be a success there, and it's the one place in Canada for you. I wish my stocks and bonds were as safe as your chances of success in Alberta.
"The exam is your only requirement. I anticipate that in your second year you will be making $30,000. Once you get to Edmonton and you're a surgeon, which will take you only thirty days after you arrive, you'll have much happier birthdays."
A. D. P. Heeney, Ambassador of Canada to the United States appears as amicus curiae for the defendant Thomson and has submitted the suggestion of Her Majesty in Right of Canada, Queen Elizabeth II, that Canada "is not subject to suit * * * without Her consent whether the suit be brought directly against Her or Her Government or by way of suit against an officer of Her Majesty's Government acting in course of his official duties and in Her Majesty's behalf in the City of New York."2
Plaintiff consenting, the United States Attorney has informed the Court of the Department of State's response to a note, dated March 17, 1960, from the Chargé d'Affaires of Canada to the Secretary of State concerning the complaint herein. The Chargé's note requested the assistance of the Secretary of State in bringing to the Court's attention that the defendant Thomson enjoys sovereign immunity. The Department's reply, as communicated to this Court, is:
"It is a matter of record in the Department of State that Mr. Hubert W. P. Thomson is `Settlement Officer—Department of Citizenship and Immigration' of the Canadian Government on duty at the Canadian Consulate General in New York City, that he held that position on and continuously...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Samantar v. Yousuf, No. 08–1555.
...followed when a foreign 130 S.Ct. 2285 official asserted immunity. See, e.g., Heaney, 445 F.2d, at 504–505; Waltier v. Thomson, 189 F.Supp. 319 (S.D.N.Y.1960).6 Prior to 1952, the State Department followed a general practice of requesting immunity in all actions against friendly sovereigns,......
-
Samantar v. Yousuf, No. 08-1555.
...followed when a foreign 130 S.Ct. 2285 official asserted immunity. See, e.g., Heaney, 445 F.2d, at 504-505; Waltier v. Thomson, 189 F.Supp. 319 (S.D.N.Y. Prior to 1952, the State Department followed a general practice of requesting immunity in all actions against friendly sovereigns, but in......
-
United States v. Fitzpatrick
...84 F.Supp. 472, 475 (S.D.N.Y.1950). But cf. United States v. Rosal, 191 F. Supp. 663 (S.D.N.Y.1960). See also, Waltier v. Thomson, 189 F.Supp. 319 (S.D.N.Y.1960); Bank of China v. Wells Fargo Bank & Union Trust Co., 104 F.Supp. 59 (N.D.Cal.1952), modified on other points, 209 F.2d 467, 48 A......
-
Gerritsen v. Escobar Y Cordova, No. CV85-5020-PAR.
...with plaintiff to support his propaganda activities against the British government furthered official function); Waltier v. Thomson, 189 F.Supp. 319, 320-21 (S.D.N.Y. 1960) (false statements made by defendant to induce plaintiff to immigrate held covered by consular Based on the record that......
-
Samantar v. Yousuf, No. 08-1555.
...followed when a foreign 130 S.Ct. 2285 official asserted immunity. See, e.g., Heaney, 445 F.2d, at 504-505; Waltier v. Thomson, 189 F.Supp. 319 (S.D.N.Y. 1960).103 S.Ct. 1962; see also Letter from Jack B. Tate, Acting Legal Adviser, Department of State, to Acting Attorney General Philip B. ......
-
Samantar v. Yousuf, No. 08–1555.
...followed when a foreign 130 S.Ct. 2285 official asserted immunity. See, e.g., Heaney, 445 F.2d, at 504–505; Waltier v. Thomson, 189 F.Supp. 319 (S.D.N.Y.1960).6 Prior to 1952, the State Department followed a general practice of requesting immunity in all actions against friendly sovereigns,......
-
United States v. Fitzpatrick
...84 F.Supp. 472, 475 (S.D.N.Y.1950). But cf. United States v. Rosal, 191 F. Supp. 663 (S.D.N.Y.1960). See also, Waltier v. Thomson, 189 F.Supp. 319 (S.D.N.Y.1960); Bank of China v. Wells Fargo Bank & Union Trust Co., 104 F.Supp. 59 (N.D.Cal.1952), modified on other points, 209 F.2d 467, 48 A......
-
Gerritsen v. Escobar Y Cordova, No. CV85-5020-PAR.
...with plaintiff to support his propaganda activities against the British government furthered official function); Waltier v. Thomson, 189 F.Supp. 319, 320-21 (S.D.N.Y. 1960) (false statements made by defendant to induce plaintiff to immigrate held covered by consular Based on the record that......