DISTRICT COURT, E.D. NEW YORK
January 7, 1940
THE WILJA; LOUIS DREYFUS et al.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: MOSCOWITZ
MOSCOWITZ, District Judge.
On Motion for Reargument.
This is a motion for reargument of the motion heretofore made herein in which the Court filed an opinion dated January 26, 1940, declining jurisdiction.
Upon this motion for reargument the libelants claim that the order declining jurisdiction should contain the following:
"1. Providing that respondent herein appear in an arbitration proceeding in London, to be commenced by the libelants herein, and had in accordance with the terms of the Arbitration Clause provided for in the contract of charter, and file bond in said proceeding in the amount of the damages claimed, as a condition precedent to this Court declining jurisdiction over the within action; or,
"2. In the alternative, for an order retaining jurisdiction over the within action but staying the further prosecution thereof in this Court pending the hearing and determination of an arbitration proceeding in London, to be commenced by the libelants herein, and had in accordance with the terms of the Arbitration Clause provided for in the contract of charter, and the entry of an order thereon in this court."
The libelants cite as authority, Canada Malting Co. v. Paterson Steamships, Ltd., D.C., 49 F.2d 802, 804, in which Judge Hazel stated: "The order shall provide for respondent's appearance in any action brought in Canada by cargo owners and file bond for recovery of damages."
Evidently the reason for this determination was due to the fact that the party making the motion to have the Court decline jurisdiction suggested the filing of the bond. There seems to be no authority for an order requiring the bond. See United States Merchants' & Shippers' Insurance Company v. A/S den Norske Afrika Og Australie Line (The Tricolor), D.C., 1 F.Supp. 934, affirmed, 2 Cir., 65 F.2d 392; Goldman v. Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd., D.C., 101 F. 467; Malcomess & Co., Ltd. v. S/S New Texas and Elder Dempster & Co., Ltd., 1926 A.M.C. 1514; The Lady Drake, D.C., 1 F.Supp., 317; The Falco, D.C., 15 F.2d 604, affirmed, 2 Cir., 20 F.2d 362; The Knappingsborg, D.C., 26 F.2d 935. Canada Malting Co. v. Paterson Steamships, Ltd., 285 U.S. 413, 52 S. Ct. 413, 76 L. Ed. 837 is not to the contrary.
Motion denied. Settle order on notice.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.