Case ID: f_262/html/0844-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "CHATFIELD, District Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SHAMROCK TOWING CO. v. MANUFACTURERS’ & MERCHANTS’ LIGHTERAGE CO. et al.
    (District Court, E. D. New York.
    February 9, 1918.)
    Admiralty <§=>32 — Suitor has right to elect district of suit where jurisdiction IS CONCURRENT.
    As between districts having concurrent jurisdiction, it is not an abuse of process for a suitor in admiralty to select the one in which he can obtain security, and whether the districts are distant from each other or adjoining is immaterial.
    In Admiralty. Action in personam, with clause of foreign attachment, by the Shamrock Towing Company against the Manufacturers’ & Merchants’ Lighterage Company and the Hax Trading Company. On motion to dismiss libel.
    Denied.
    Alexander & Ash, of New York City, for libelant.
    Foley & Martin, of New York City, for respondents.
   CHATFIELD, District Judge.

The purpose of choosing this district was to obtain security. While concurrent jurisdiction exists between the districts, this does not give the right to obtain security in the district where personal service could be had. The possibility of levying upon the vessel does not give the right so to do. Hence it is not abuse of process to go into an adjoining district any more than it would be to go to a more remote district.

Motion denied.