Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 30 views

    Charter Shipping Co. v. Bowring, Jones & Tidy, LTD., 281 U.S. 515 (1930)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and reinstated the District Court's dismissal of the libel. The District Court, which has discretion over retaining jurisdiction in admiralty cases between foreigners, declined jurisdiction because both parties were British and the litigation involved applying English law to a fund located in England. The Supreme Court found the District Court did not abuse its discretion in determining that justice would be best served by leaving the parties to litigate in the pending English suit.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Charter Shipping Co. v. Bowring, Jones & Tidy, LTD., 281 U.S. 515 (1930)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    30 views3 pages
    The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and reinstated the District Court's dismissal of the libel. The District Court, which has discretion over retaining jurisdiction in admiralty cases between foreigners, declined jurisdiction because both parties were British and the litigation involved applying English law to a fund located in England. The Supreme Court found the District Court did not abuse its discretion in determining that justice would be best served by leaving the parties to litigate in the pending English suit.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1930-05-19 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 281 U.S. 515 Docket: 397

    Original Title

    Charter Shipping Co. v. Bowring, Jones & Tidy, Ltd., 281 U.S. 515 (1930)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and reinstated the District Court's dismissal of the libel. The District Court, which has discretion over retaining jurisdiction in admiralty cases between foreigners, declined jurisdiction because both parties were British and the litigation involved applying English law to a fund located in England. The Supreme Court found the District Court did not abuse its discretion in determining that justice would be best served by leaving the parties to litigate in the pending English suit.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as court, pdf, or txt
    30 views3 pages

    Charter Shipping Co. v. Bowring, Jones & Tidy, LTD., 281 U.S. 515 (1930)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and reinstated the District Court's dismissal of the libel. The District Court, which has discretion over retaining jurisdiction in admiralty cases between foreigners, declined jurisdiction because both parties were British and the litigation involved applying English law to a fund located in England. The Supreme Court found the District Court did not abuse its discretion in determining that justice would be best served by leaving the parties to litigate in the pending English suit.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as court, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    281 U.S.

    515
    50 S.Ct. 400
    74 L.Ed. 1008

    CHARTER SHIPPING CO., Limited,


    v.
    BOWRING, JONES & TIDY, Limited.
    No. 397.
    Argued April 22, 1930.
    Decided May 19, 1930.

    Mr. Cletus Keating, of New York City, for petitioner.


    Mr. Theodore L. Bailey, of New York City, for respondent.
    Mr. Justice STONE delivered the opinion of the Court.

    Respondent, a British corporation, filed in the District Court for Southern New
    York a libel in personam against petitioner, also a British corporation, to
    recover a general average deposit made in London. The libel alleged that the
    petitioner received on its vessel, the Charterhague, at various Gulf and Atlantic
    ports in the United States, shipments of rosin and turpentine for transportation
    to London, bills of lading for which were indorsed to the respondent. As
    grounds for recovery it was set up that the general average act was due to
    unseaworthiness of the vessel at the beginning of the voyage, unknown to
    respondent when it made the deposit in order to release the cargo from the
    general average lien.

    On the libel, the general appearance and exceptions of the libelee, the petitioner
    here, and an answering affidavit setting up that after the libel in the present suit
    was filed respondent commenced suit in England involving the same subjectmatter, the District Court dismissed the libel, saying that contribution for
    general average is to be determined by law of the port of discharge and that
    'under all the circumstances' jurisdiction should be declined. The Court of
    Appeals reversed, holding that the jurisdiction should have been retained. 33 F.
    (2d) 280. It pointed out that the suit did not involve a restatement of a general
    average adjustment and said that if the bills of lading contained a 'Jason clause'

    or incorporated the provisions of the Harter Act (46 USCA 190-195), the
    question of due diligence to make the vessel seaworthy would be an issue in the
    case, citing The Jason, 225 U. S. 32, 32 S. Ct. 560, 56 L. Ed. 969; The Edwin I.
    Morrison, 153 U. S. 199, 14 S. Ct. 823, 38 L. Ed. 688; Hurlbut v. Turnure (D.
    C.) 76 F. 587, affirmed (C. C. A.) 81 F. 208; Trinidad Shipping Co. v. Frame,
    Alston & Co. (D. C.) 88 F. 528; that the rule that general average is controlled
    by the law at the port of destination was consequently an insufficient reason for
    declining jurisdiction, and, in view of the statement of the affidavit that there
    were American witnesses as to seaworthiness, concluded that it was expedient
    under all the circumstances for the court to retain jurisdiction. This court
    granted certiorari, 280 U. S. 545, 50 S. Ct. 39, 74 L. Ed. .
    3

    The retention of jurisdiction of a suit in admiralty between foreigners is within


    the discretion of the District Court. The exercise of its discretion may not be
    disturbed unless abused. The Belgenland, 114 U. S. 355, 368, 5 S. Ct. 860, 29
    L. Ed. 152; The Maggie Hammond, 9 Wall. 435, 457, 19 L. Ed. 772.

    The affidavit states that the bills of lading contain a clause providing for
    general average, but the bills of lading are not in the record and it does not
    appear that they embraced Jason or other clauses modifying the liability in
    general average. As that liability arises not from contract but from participation
    in the common venture, see Hobson v. Lord, 92 U. S. 397, 23 L. Ed. 613;
    Barnard v. Adams, 10 How. 270, 303, 13 L. Ed. 417; The Roanoke (C. C. A.)
    59 F. 161, 163; Milburn v. Jamaica Fruit, etc., Co., (1900) 2 Q. B. 540, 550, its
    extent in the absence of such limiting clauses is, under the admiralty rule, fixed
    by the law of the port of destination. Hobson v. Lord, supra, page 411 of 2 U.
    S., 23 L. Ed. 613; Monsen v. Amsinck (D. C.) 166 F. 817, 820; Compagnie
    Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. Bonnasse (D. C.) 15 F.(2d) 202, 203;
    Congdon, General Average (2d Ed.) 148. Even if so limited, the extent and
    effect of the limitation cannot be determined apart from consideration of the
    rule limited.

    Both the parties being British subjects and the present litigation, as well as the
    suit pending abroad, apparently involving the application of English law to the
    fund located there, it was for the Distirct Court to say, as it did, upon a
    consideration of all the circumstances, whether it should decline 'to take
    cognizance of the case if justice would be done as well by remitting the parties
    to the home forum.' See The Maggie Hammond, supra, page 457 of 9 Wall., 19
    L. Ed. 772.

    Even if we assume, as did the court below, that the bills of lading may have
    modified the liability in general average so as to put in issue the care taken to

    make the vessel seaworthy before sailing, we cannot say that the District Court
    improvidently exercised its discretion. While some witnesses as to
    seaworthiness were 'American repairmen,' it does not appear that any were in or
    near the southern district of New York. The libel alleges that the Charterhague
    plied as a common carrier between American ports and London where, so far as
    appears, her officers and crew would be available as witnesses as to the alleged
    unseaworthy condition of engines and boilers. It was for the District Judge to
    consider the facts appearing and the inferences which he might draw from them
    and reach his own conclusion as to the convenience of witnesses as well as the
    other factors upon which he decided that justice would be best served by
    leaving the parties to their suit in England.
    7

    Reversed.

    You might also like