Nlll':LSON v. THE WILLA-METrE et at
D. December 1$, 1892.)
'J'hetiet fixing the Ulnes and places of holding federal ,COjlrt8 in the state of WllShington, 81;. at Large, p. 45, 54) provides thataetl.ons not of a localllaPu'e shallbe brought in the diVision where the defendant resides. Hcld,that it is the lntentof the act that actions ofa local nature shall be 'brought in the divlslon Where the res Is when the suitlsbegun.
OASES-DIVISIONS OF DISTRICT OF WASIDNGTON.
2. SAllE-LmEL IN R E M . ,
, A llbelin "-'emie an. aotion of a 100111 character, within tlie meaning of ;t:,iples and places for 1l01Uing federal the state of (2(j St. at Large, p; 45,§ 4,) and must be lJrought in the division Where the 'res is! When the suit is begun. thereto bejng
SAllE-OHANGE TO PROPER DIVISION.,
Where' ll.'Ubelln, rem
is brought 'In the wrong cUvision, the objections and it is probable that the .c;ase will be tried
to transfer the cause to the
In in rem against the steamship Willamette to reeover damages for a pel'8Onal injury received in a collision between to transfer the oause to the northern division of the distriot,in which the oollision ooollrred, and in which the vessel was arrested. her home port being in another state. Granted. A, R. Titlow. for libelant. , ',' Crowley, &; Sullivan, for intervening libelants. A. F. Burleigh and ,J. ;E. for claimant. HANFORD, District Judge. The Oregon Improvement Company, a. corporation of the state of Oregon, has filed its claim as owner of the vessel pro,*eded against in this case, and filed exceptions to the libel, and .moved to transfer the cause to the division of this district. I have considered all the questions raised by said exceptions and Iij,otion, and, as there appears to be probability that the will to a trial :upon questions of fact, it is proper to pass upon tp,e motionuow. It is shown that the vessel was found and ar· rested by tJ,le,,marshal in the northern division,although her home port isPortla:n1l, the state of Oregon; that her officers reside in the northern <!ivision,;andthat the case arises out of a collision between vessel and the passenger steamer Premier, whioh occurred upon inlet, ,Seattle and Port Townsend, in the northern, .division. The libelant and intervening libelants reside in the western division, and for their9wn convenience have brought the suit in said division. The fourth section of the act to provide for the times and places to hold terms of court in this district (26 St. at , Large, 45) reads as follows:
"Sec. 4. That all civil suits, not of a local chat'acter, which shall be brought in the district or circuit courts of the United States for the district of Wash· ington, in either of said divisions, against a single defendant, or where all the df'fendante reside in the same division of said district, be brought in the divlslon in which the defendant or defendants reside. * * * All issues of
fact in a civil cause triable· in any of the said courts sl:1all .he tried in thedi\ where the defendants, or one of the defendants,. reside, unless by consent of both parties the case shall be removed to some other division."
I consider the intention of this law to be that a plaintiff must sue his adversary in the division wherein he resides, or wherein the thing or property proceeded. against happens to be situated or found, and to deny to a plaintiff the right to bring either individuals or property to the place where he resides, or where it will best suit his flonvenience to have the trial. If the libelant may prosecute this at Tacoma without consent of the defendant, another person having cause of complaint against a vessel on Puget sound, and residing at Spokane or Walla Walla, could with equal propriety cause process to issue from either of said places, and bring his case against her to trial there. My usion is that a suit in rem is of a local nature, triable only in the division. within which the res happens to be situated at the time of commencing the suit. The motion will therefore be granted. If I were of the opinion that the exceptions to the libel were sustainable on other than formal grounds, and that the case would probably be terminated without trial upon issues of fact, I would not deem it expedient to grant the motion; but, as at present advised, I consider the libel to be defective for one reason only, and that is, for want of the formal allegation that the vessel, at the time of bringing the suit, was within the jurisdiction of the court. This defect is curable by an amendment. The other points suggested upon the argument of the exceptions may receive further attention after the filing of an amended libel
MARQUARDT et al. v. FRENCH.' (District Court, S. D. New York. January 6, 1893.)
1. MARITIME CONTRACTS.
A contract to procure insurance Is not a maritime contrallt, enforceable in admiralty.
2. SAME-CONTRACT OF INSURANCE-REPRESENTATIONS.
Respondent, a carrier and forwarder, on receiving certain barrels of cement at New York, dlivertd to libelants a bill of lading stamped as fol· lows: "Insured Buffalo to Mil. $5,400. Premium paid." A marine loss having occurred in transit, libelants brought this suit, alleging that the stamped bill constituted a contract equivalent to a valued marine policy issued by the respondE-nt, on which they were entitled to recover $5,400, though such sum was beyond their actual loss. Held, that the stamp was not a policy or contract of insuranlle, but merely a representation or guaranty that insurance in the amount stated had been or would be effected, which interpretation was borne out by the evidence as to the previous negotiations of the parties; that the libel could uot be sustained; and that it could not be amended so as to proceed upon such a representation or guaranty, because that was not a maritime contract, but a preliminary contract only, of which an admiralty court has no jurisdiction.
In Admiralty. Libel by Minna F. Marquardt and others against Henry C. French to recover insurance. Decree for respondent.
'lteported by E. G. Beut:dict, Esq., of the New York bar.