1. In a suit in admiralty between foreigners, it is ordinarily
within the discretion of the district court to refuse to retain
jurisdiction, and the exercise of its discretion will not be
disturbed unless abused. P.
285 U. S.
418.
2. This rule applies even though the cause of action arose in
this country. Pp.
285 U. S.
418-419.
3. Two ships of Canadian registry and ownership, each carrying
cargo shipped from one Canadian port to another, collided on Lake
Superior while unintentionally in United States waters, and one
ship sank. While suit was pending in a Canadian court of admiralty
to determine liability as between the ships, libels
in
personam against the owner of one of them were filed by cargo
owners in a federal district court in New York. All the parties
were citizens of Canada, and the officers and crew of each vessel
-- the material witnesses -- were citizens and residents of that
country. Opposing affidavits alleged that the motive of the cargo
owners in coming to a court of the United States lay in the
opportunity in our law to recover full damages from the noncarrying
vessel, whereas, in Canada, the liability would be divided equally
between the two vessels if both were at fault. The district court
dismissed the libels, but ordered that the respondent should appear
and file security in any action which might be instituted by the
libelants in the admiralty
Page 285 U. S. 414
courts of Canada, so that they would not, by dismissal of the
libels, lose the security gained by foreign attachment.
Held that the refusal to retain jurisdiction was not an
abuse of discretion. P.
285 U. S.
423.
51 F.2d 1007 affirmed.
Certiorari, 284 U.S. 612, to review the affirmance of decrees
dismissing three libels in admiralty. 49 F.2d 802, 804.
Page 285 U. S. 417
MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.
These three libels in admiralty
in personam were
brought in the federal court for western New York by owners of
cargo laden on the steamer
Yorkton to recover for loss
resulting from the sinking of that vessel in a collision with
respondent's steamer
Mantadoc in Lake Superior on the
American side of the international boundary line. The respondent
moved, in each case, that the district court exercise its
discretion to decline jurisdiction and dismiss the libels on the
ground that all the parties were citizens of Canada, and that the
controversy concerned "matters . . . properly the subjects of
hearing and determination" by the Canadian courts. The motions were
granted, 49 F.2d 802, 804, and the decrees of the district court
were affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, 51 F.2d 1007. This Court granted certiorari.
Shortly after the collision, the Wreck Commissioner of Canada
held a formal investigation, as required by law, respecting the
circumstances of the collision, and determined that the masters of
both vessels were at fault. The respondent then instituted in the
Admiralty Court of Canada a proceeding for the judicial
determination of the liability as between the colliding vessels and
their owners.
Page 285 U. S. 418
The libelants' motive for invoking the jurisdiction of a court
of the United States instead of that of the Canadian court in which
that proceeding was pending appears in affidavits filed with the
exceptions to the libel. Under the Canadian law, it is stated, if
both colliding vessels were at fault, each vessel would be liable
for not more than half of the loss, and the salvaged value of the
Yorkton might not suffice to pay its share.
See The
Milan, Lush.Adm. 401. Under our law, the innocent cargo owner
can recover full damages from the noncarrying vessel.
The New
York, 175 U. S. 187,
175 U. S.
209-210.
The libelants concede, as they must, that in a suit in admiralty
between foreigners it is ordinarily within the discretion of the
district court to refuse to retain jurisdiction, and that the
exercise of its discretion will not be disturbed unless abused.
Charter Shipping Co. v. Bowring, Jones & Tidy, Ltd.,
281 U. S. 515,
281 U. S. 517.
Compare Watts, Watts & Co. v. Unione Austriaca di
Navigazione, 248 U. S. 9;
Langnes v. Green, 282 U. S. 531,
282 U. S. 544.
They claim, however, that the rule is not applicable here, since
the cause of action arose within the territorial limits of the
United States, and, moreover, that if the District Court had
discretion, the decrees should be reversed because, on the
undisputed facts, it was an abuse of discretion to decline
jurisdiction. We are of opinion that neither claim is well
founded.
First. The contention that the jurisdiction was
obligatory rests upon the fact that the collision occurred within
the territorial waters of the United States. The argument is that a
cause of action arising from a collision occurring on territorial
waters of the United States arises out of its laws, since within
its territory there can be no other law,
Smith v.
Condry, 1 How. 28,
42 U. S. 33;
Slater v. Mexican National R. Co., 194 U.
S. 120,
194 U. S. 126;
New York Central R. Co. v. Chisholm, 268 U. S.
29,
268 U. S. 32;
that the Constitution, Art. III, § 2, cl. 1, extends the
judicial
Page 285 U. S. 419
power to "all cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;"
that § 24 of the Judicial Code confers upon the district court
jurisdiction "of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime
jurisdiction;" and that, by vesting jurisdiction in that court,
Congress imposed a duty upon it to exercise the jurisdiction.
Cohens v.
Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264,
19 U. S. 404;
McClellan v. Carland, 217 U. S. 268,
217 U. S. 281;
Second Employers' Liability Case, 223 U. S.
1,
223 U. S. 58-59,.
In support of the argument that there is no power to decline
jurisdiction in cases where the cause of action arose within the
United States, the libelants urge the statement in
The
Belgenland, 114 U. S. 355,
114 U. S. 365,
that
"the courts will use a discretion about assuming jurisdiction of
controversies between foreigners in cases arising beyond the
territorial jurisdiction of the country to which the courts
belong."
The respondent insists that the doctrine of
lex loci
delicti has no application to cases of collision on the Great
Lakes; that the Great Lakes and their connecting channels
constitute public navigable waters, irrespective of the location of
the international boundary, and possess all the characteristics of
the high seas,
The Eagle, 8
Wall. 15,
75 U. S. 22;
United States v. Rodgers, 150 U.
S. 249,
150 U. S. 256;
Panama R. Co. v. Napier Shipping Co., 166 U.
S. 280,
166 U. S. 285;
The New York, 175 U. S. 187;
The Robert W. Parsons, 191 U. S. 17,
191 U. S. 27;
that, in a case of collision on the high seas between two vessels
of the same nationality, liability is governed by the law of the
flag,
The Scotland, 105 U. S. 24,
105 U. S. 29-30;
The Eagle Point, 142 F. 453, 454; that the Canadian law
would apply in the cases at bar, and that, hence, the asserted
ground for the district court's retaining jurisdiction fails.
We have no occasion to inquire by what law the rights of the
parties are governed, as we are of the opinion that, under any view
of that question, it lay within the discretion of the district
court to decline to assume jurisdiction
Page 285 U. S. 420
over the controversy. The suggestion drawn from the language in
The Belgenland, supra, that such discretion exists only
"in cases arising beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the
country to which the courts belong" is without support in either
the earlier or the later decisions of this Court. Nor is it
justified by the language relied on, when that language is read in
its context. The case of
The Belgenland arose out of a
collision on the high seas between foreign vessels of different
nationalities, and the objection was raised that the courts of the
United States were wholly without jurisdiction. Mr. Justice
Bradley, speaking for the Court, replied that jurisdiction in
admiralty did exist over controversies between foreigners arising
without the territorial waters of this country, but that the court,
in such a case, would use its discretion in determining whether to
exercise it. That the Court had no intention of denying the
existence of similar discretion where the cause of action arose
within the territorial waters of this country is shown by its
reference to the cases of
The Maggie
Hammond, 9 Wall. 435,
76 U. S. 457,
and
Taylor v.
Carryl, 20 How. 583,
61 U. S. 611,
in which no such limitation was expressed, and which the Court
described as "accurately stating" the law. The doctrine of these
earlier cases was recently reiterated by this Court, in similar
terms, in
Langnes v. Green, 282 U.
S. 531,
282 U. S. 544,
where it was said:
"Admiralty courts . . . have complete jurisdiction over suits of
a maritime nature between foreigners. Nevertheless, 'the question
is one of discretion in every case, and the Court will not take
cognizance of the case if justice would be as well done by
remitting the parties to their home forum.'"
See also Charter Shipping Co. v. Bowring, Jones & Tidy,
Ltd., 281 U. S. 515,
281 U. S. 517.
[
Footnote 1]
Page 285 U. S. 421
The rule recognizing an unqualified discretion to decline
jurisdiction in suits in admiralty between foreigners appears to be
supported by an unbroken line of decisions in the lower federal
courts. [
Footnote 2] The
question has most frequently been presented in suits by foreign
seamen against masters or owners of foreign vessels, relating to
claims for wages and like differences, [
Footnote 3] or to claims of personal injury. [
Footnote 4] Although such cases are
ordinarily decided according
Page 285 U. S. 422
to the foreign law, they often concern causes of action arising
within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
Compare Patterson v. Bark Eudora, 190 U.
S. 169;
The Kestor, 110 F. 432, 450. Neither in
these nor in other cases has the bare circumstance of where the
cause of action arose been treated as determinative of the power of
the court to exercise discretion whether to take jurisdiction.
[
Footnote 5]
Obviously the proposition that a court having jurisdiction must
exercise it is not universally true, else the admiralty court could
never decline jurisdiction on the ground that the litigation is
between foreigners. Nor is it true of courts administering other
systems of our law.
Page 285 U. S. 423
Courts of equity and of law also occasionally decline, in the
interest of justice, to exercise jurisdiction, where the suit is
between aliens or nonresidents, or where for kindred reasons the
litigation can more appropriately be conducted in a foreign
tribunal. [
Footnote 6] The
decisions relied upon by libelants are inapposite for several
reasons. They were not in admiralty causes, nor did they involve
alien or nonresident parties.
Compare Second Employers'
Liability Case, 223 U. S. 1,
223 U. S. 58-59,
with Douglas v. New York, New Haven & Hartford R. Co.,
279 U. S. 377. The
cases of
Cohens v.
Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264,
19 U. S. 404,
and
McClellan v. Carland, 217 U.
S. 268,
217 U. S. 281,
denied the right to abdicate to state courts jurisdiction which the
Constitution in positive terms intrusts to the federal
judiciary.
Second. There is no basis for the contention that the
district court abused its discretion. All the parties were not only
foreigners, but were citizens of Canada. Both the colliding vessels
were registered under the laws of Canada, and each was owned by a
Canadian corporation. The officers and the crew of each vessel --
the material witnesses -- were citizens and residents of that
country, and so would not be available for compulsory attendance in
the district court. The cargo in each case was shipped under a
Canadian bill of lading from one Canadian port to another. The
collision occurred at a point where the inland waters narrowed to a
neck, and the district court concluded that the colliding vessels
proceeded
Page 285 U. S. 424
in United States waters unintentionally. If the libelants are
entitled to have applied the law of the United States in respect to
the liability, the Canadian courts will, it must be assumed, give
effect to it. The district court embodied in the decrees an order
that the respondent should appear and file security in any action
which might be instituted by the petitioners in the admiralty
courts of Canada, so that petitioners would not, by dismissal of
the libels, lose the security gained by the foreign attachment. It
is difficult to conceive of a state of facts more clearly
justifying the refusal of a district court to retain jurisdiction
in a cause between foreigners.
Affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO took no part in the consideration or
decision of these cases.
* Together with No. 488,
British Empire Grain Co., Ltd. v.
Paterson Steamships, Ltd., and No. 489,
Starrles v.
Same.
[
Footnote 1]
Compare 6 U. S. The Ship
Blaireau, 2 Cranch. 240,
6 U. S. 264;
Ex parte
Newman, 14 Wall. 152,
81 U. S.
168-169;
Panama R. Co. v. Napier Shipping Co.,
166 U. S. 280,
166 U. S.
285.
[
Footnote 2]
See note 5
infra. See also One Hundred and Ninety-four
Shawls, 1 Abb.Adm. 317, 321, Fed.Cas. No. 10,521;
The
Sailor's Bride, 1 Brown's Adm., 68, 70, Fed.Cas. No. 12,220;
The Bee, 1 Ware 336, 339, Fed.Cas. No. 1,219;
Muir v.
The Brig Brisk, 4 Ben. 252, 254, Fed.Cas. No. 9,901;
Thomassen v. Whitwell, 9 Ben. 113, Fed.Cas. No. 13,928;
Boult v. Ship Naval Reserve, 5 F. 209;
The City of
Carlisle, 39 F. 807, 815;
Goldman v. Furness, Withy &
Co., 101 F. 467, 469;
The Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse,
175 F. 215, 216, 217;
The Iquitos, 286 F. 383, 384;
Danielsen v. Entre Rios Rys. Co., 22 F.2d
326, 327;
The Canadian Commander, 43 F.2d 857,
858.
[
Footnote 3]
Jurisdiction was declined in
Willendson v. The
Forsoket, 1 Pet.Adm.197, Fed.Cas. No. 17,682;
The
Infanta, 1 Abb.Adm. 263, 268-269, Fed.Cas. No. 7,030;
The
Ada, 2 Ware (Dav. 407) 408, Fed.Cas. No. 38;
The
Becherdass Ambaidass, 1 Lowell 569, Fed.Cas. No. 1,203;
The Montapedia, 14 F. 427;
The Ucayali, 164 F.
897, 900;
The Albani, 169 F. 220, 222.
In the following cases, jurisdiction was taken, but the
existence of discretion recognized:
Thompson v. The Ship
Catharina, 1 Pet.Adm. 104, Fed.Cas. No. 13,949;
Weiberg v.
The Brig St. Oloff, 2 Pet.Adm. 428, Fed.Cas. No. 17,357;
Davis v. Leslie, 1 Abb.Adm. 123, 131, Fed.Cas. No. 3,639;
Bucker v. Klorkgeter, 1 Abb.Adm. 402, 405-406, Fed.Cas.
No. 2,083;
The Pawashick, 2 Lowell 142, 151, Fed.Cas. No.
10,851;
The Brig Napoleon, Olcott 208, 215, Fed.Cas. No.
10,015;
The Bark Lilian M. Vigus, 10 Ben. 385, Fed.Cas.
No. 8,346;
The Amalia, 3 F. 652, 653;
The
Salomoni, 29 F. 534, 537;
The Topsy, 44 F. 631, 633,
635;
The Sirius, 47 F. 825, 827;
The Karoo, 49 F.
651;
The Lady Furness, 84 F. 679, 680;
The
Alnwick, 132 F. 117, 120;
The August Belmont, 153 F.
639;
The Sonderborg, 47 F.2d 723, 725.
[
Footnote 4]
Jurisdiction was declined in
The Carolina, 14 F. 424;
Camille v. Couch, 40 F. 176;
The Walter D.
Wallet, 66 F. 1011, 1013;
The Lamington, 87 F. 752,
757;
The Knappingsborg, 26 F.2d 935, 937.
See also
Bolden v. Jensen, 70 F. 505, 509.
Compare Bernhard v.
Creene, 3 Sawy. 230, 234, Fed.Cas. No. 1,349;
The
Noddleburn, 30 F. 142, 143;
The Troop, 118 F. 769,
772.
[
Footnote 5]
The only case supporting the position of the petitioners which
has been called to our attention is
The Apurimac, 7 F.2d
741, 742, involving an action by a foreign seaman for injuries
sustained on a foreign vessel lying in American waters. The
expressions of the district court in this case, however, were
disapproved by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit,
which affirmed the judgment on the ground that jurisdiction,
although discretionary, had been properly taken.
Heredia v.
Davies, 12 F.2d 500, 501.
In the
Steamship Russia, 3 Ben. 471, 476-479, Fed.Cas.
No. 12, 168, the district court for the Southern District of New
York, took jurisdiction of a libel arising out of the collision of
foreign vessels of different nationalities in New York Harbor, but
expressly treated the question as one within its discretion. In
The Bifrost, 8 F.2d 361, 362, jurisdiction was declined in
an action by foreign seamen for breach of contract in shipping
articles, although it was urged that the articles were signed in
this country and governed by its law.
See also Fairgrieve v.
Marine Ins. Co., 94 F. 686, 687;
The Ester, 190 F.
216, 221;
Cunard S.S. Co. v. Smith, 255 F. 846, 848, 849;
The Eemdyjk, 286 F. 385;
The Seirstad, 12 F.2d
133, 134;
The Fredensbro, 18 F.2d
983, 984;
The Sneland I, 19 F.2d 528, 529;
The
Falco, 20 F.2d 362, 364.
Compare Neptune Steam Nav. Co. v.
Sullivan Timber Co., 37 F. 159.
[
Footnote 6]
Compare Davis v. Farmers' Cooperative Equity Co.,
262 U. S. 312;
Logan v. Bank of Scotland (1906) 1 K.B. 141;
Societe
du Gaz de Paris v. Armateurs Francais (1926) Sess. Cas. (H.L.)
13.
See, for collections of authorities, Paxton Blair,
"The Doctrine of
Forum Non conveniens in Anglo-American
Law," 29 Col.L.Rev. 1; Roger S. Foster, "Place of Trial in Civil
Actions," 43 Harv.L.Rev. 1217, "Place of Trial -- Interstate
Application of Intrastate Methods of Adjustment," 44
id.
41; Note, 32 A.L.R. 6.