Tennessee Steel & Supply Co. v. SS Padma

S.D. New York

Tennessee Steel & Supply Co. v. SS Padma

300 F. Supp. 678, 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7058

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedNovember 8, 1967

DocketNo. 66 Civ. 3768

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 300 F. Supp. 678 (Tennessee Steel & Supply Co. v. SS Padma) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tennessee Steel & Supply Co. v. SS Padma, 300 F. Supp. 678, 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7058 (S.D.N.Y. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

■EDWARD WEINFELD, District Judge.

Upon the record it does not appear that the defendant National Shipping Corporation, a Pakistani corporation, is engaged within this district in such activities, either directly or through an authorized agent, as to subject it to this court’s jurisdiction. The statements by the asserted general agent, mainly self-serving, relied upon to establish that defendant can be found within this district are challenged by plaintiff and in no wise rebutted by defendant. Thus, the plaintiff’s charge that the five vessels alleged by defendant to have been berthed within this district for loading and unloading were in fact berthed, loaded and discharged at Port Newark within the district of New Jersey is not answered by either the defendant or the defendant’s agent.

The statement by the general agent that it represents the defendant “in the United States,” collects moneys for its account and receives cargo and personal injury claims arising out of the operation of its vessels, but without specification of any such activities within this district, does not establish that defendant carried on necessary activities here and to such a degree that the defendant was present or could be found here in jurisdictional terms. It is significant that, with respect to the allegation by the agent that defendant’s activities within this district are sufficient for jurisdictional purposes, no affidavit is submitted by any officer or principal of defendant, nor any explanation offered for failure to submit proof on this issue. The defendant having failed to satisfy the first element of the two-pronged inquiry, it is unnecessary to resolve whether it can be found, either directly or through an agent, within the district for service of process. Accordingly, the defendant’s motion to vacate the attachment is denied. See Chilean Line, Inc. v. United States, 344 F.2d 757 (2d Cir. 1965); Seawind Compania, S.A. v. Crescent Line, Inc., 320 F.2d 580 (2d Cir. 1963); United States v. Cia. Naviera Continental S.A., 178 F.Supp. 561 (S.D.N.Y. 1959).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

■EDWARD WEINFELD, District Judge.

Upon the record it does not appear that the defendant National Shipping Corporation, a Pakistani corporation, is engaged within this district in such activities, either directly or through an authorized agent, as to subject it to this court’s jurisdiction. The statements by the asserted general agent, mainly self-serving, relied upon to establish that defendant can be found within this district are challenged by plaintiff and in no wise rebutted by defendant. Thus, the plaintiff’s charge that the five vessels alleged by defendant to have been berthed within this district for loading and unloading were in fact berthed, loaded and discharged at Port Newark within the district of New Jersey is not answered by either the defendant or the defendant’s agent.

The statement by the general agent that it represents the defendant “in the United States,” collects moneys for its account and receives cargo and personal injury claims arising out of the operation of its vessels, but without specification of any such activities within this district, does not establish that defendant carried on necessary activities here and to such a degree that the defendant was present or could be found here in jurisdictional terms. It is significant that, with respect to the allegation by the agent that defendant’s activities within this district are sufficient for jurisdictional purposes, no affidavit is submitted by any officer or principal of defendant, nor any explanation offered for failure to submit proof on this issue. The defendant having failed to satisfy the first element of the two-pronged inquiry, it is unnecessary to resolve whether it can be found, either directly or through an agent, within the district for service of process. Accordingly, the defendant’s motion to vacate the attachment is denied. See Chilean Line, Inc. v. United States, 344 F.2d 757 (2d Cir. 1965); Seawind Compania, S.A. v. Crescent Line, Inc., 320 F.2d 580 (2d Cir. 1963); United States v. Cia. Naviera Continental S.A., 178 F.Supp. 561 (S.D.N.Y. 1959).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 F. Supp. 678, 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7058, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tennessee-steel-supply-co-v-ss-padma-nysd-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack