Steamship mutual underwriting association limited
Steamship mutual vessel search
Spinning, 23 Wash. It is conceded that by its terms the policy is one of indemnity only, and that appellant's right of action thereunder is based solely upon the application of certain provisions of the California insurance code. As to those assertions, however, the first point to note is that Sulpicio accepts that its vessels were entered with the Club. December 30, Its proof in support of the allegations of the complaint consisted of a duly authenticated copy of the Delaware judgment and proof that a certified copy thereof had been filed in the United States district court for the western district of Washington. John Hancock Mut. Baumgartner, Wash. That is said to require the interpretation of laws and jurisprudence which is necessarily the function of the courts of law. In re Fourth Ave. Costaguta, U. We think that this contention is answered by the recent decision of the United States supreme court in Maryland Cas. A most interesting demonstration of the right to secure amendment of a return of service to show jurisdictional facts is found in two of our opinions dealing with the same judgment.
Stage three: should the relief sought be granted? Overseas Tankship Corp. Permission was granted by an order of Cooke J dated 16 Jan Gooley, Wash.
An amended complaint by Sulpicio in those proceedings specifically identifies in paragraph 7 the contract between Sulpicio and the Club in the certificate of entry that I have quoted earlier in this judgment.
In the absence of an agreement to the contrary, the law of the place where the contract is entered into controls the determination of the rights and liabilities of the parties thereunder. The exact character of this insurance will be discussed hereinafter.
The arbitrator could, under English law, himself grant an anti-suit injunction.
Steamship mutual board of directors
Justice Van Devanter has said of the Jones act that, "rightly understood," it ". Department Two. Jensen, U. Justice Black: "Because of the confused state in which this case goes back to the District Court I think it desirable that all questions be discussed. I don't say that it goes to the real fundamental merits of this lawsuit. In his complaint, he pleaded the existence of a statute of the territory of Alaska which provides that persons, associations, and corporations engaged in businesses or occupations carried on by means of machinery or other mechanical appliances shall be liable to any of their employees for all damages which may result from the negligence of any of their officers, agents, or employees thus having the same effect as the Jones act in the instant case. The Club says that Sulpicio's claim cannot be brought other than by way of arbitration in London. Nothing occurred during the course of the trial or down to the final arguments to change the situation. It is the contention of respondent, and apparently the basis of the trial court's conclusion, that, inasmuch as the return shows on its face that service was not made upon the secretary of state personally, the Delaware substituted service statute was not complied with and the Delaware court did not acquire jurisdiction of the defendant, which made no appearance. December 30, Frankford, U. Respondent made two major contentions in the trial court: 1 that the Delaware judgment was void because the court had no jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action, and 2 that the insurance policy it had issued was an indemnity and not a liability policy, and the California statute which in effect made it a liability policy was neither applicable nor constitutional. Note this language: "The stage was used in the repair of the ship, and was as intimately associated with it and with the seaman's employment as are the gangways or other appliances or the passageways used by the seaman in doing his work. In such an action, when the pleadings state facts that indicate that the cause is maritime in nature, recovery may be had under the general rules of the maritime law, regardless of the theory of recovery relied upon by the pleadings and regardless of whether the action was maintained in an admiralty or a common-law court; hence, where under the pleadings recovery could be based upon unseaworthiness under the general maritime law, the fact that the expiration of the three-year limitation applicable to cases under the Jones act deprived the court of jurisdiction under that act for injuries caused by the negligence of a fellow servant, did not deprive the court of jurisdiction of the subject matter of the maritime cause of action. Extraterritorial jurisdiction: analysis
Meyer, supraand these are the grounds upon which the trial court based its judgment of dismissal in the present case. When a judgment is to be attacked, lack of jurisdiction must be specially pleaded by an appropriate plea stating the facts, except where the issue is raised by a denial of the material facts on which such jurisdiction is based.
based on 47 review