FEDERAL REPORTER,
vol. 43.
l.L:B,ROWNj
J. In this case the two steamers were going in netl.rly'6pposite,
therefrom by not more than three-fourths ofa point, thelCnightgQingN.E.by.N., tN.; the Gulf Stream S.by W.,! W. The vesse1s.Il1Q.Qe. each..other's lights when several miles tlistant. The J{night made. the green light of the Gulf Stream about half a poiht off her own port how,and ported her helm, and she did not see the red light of the GUlf.Streamat all. The GUlfStreanl'firstsaw, about half a p.oint 011 her starboard bow, both colored lights of the Knight. She theh changed her course one point to port, and ran Some distance until she shut out tbered·ligbt for a short time; but-soon after the red light along :with the green; when she hard a.starboarded, IHid theeoUision occurred shortly after. The Knight was all the time portirig ller wheel,until:at theeollision she headed about E. by·N.· When she pQrte<l,she gave a iltignalof one whistle, which . was not heard by the Gulf Neither vessel stopped, nor even slowed herengine. Under 15 of the new rules of navigation, these vessels 'were on croSsing CCll\ilrses; as respectR the Knight, because she saw only the other's greep. light; and as· respects Gulf Stream, because the two colored lights were not seen @ead, but from' half a point to It point and a half on her own starboard bow. for a considerable time before'liny risk of colliaion· so that she showed to the Knight only her own By.articles 16 and 22,.. therefore, it Wfis the'duty of the Gult Stream to keep out of the way, and of the keep her course. The Knight disobeyed this rule by porting. This manifestly contributed to bring about the collision, and she is, on that ground, in fault. It seems to me equally clear that the Gulf Stream was also in fault in not observing the eighteelithartie1e, .which, under the above circumstances,required her to slacken" speed or to stop and reverse when they approached near each other. The Gulf Stream, when at a considerable course pne point to port, 90 aB"to bring the Knight about a point and a half on. her starboarci. pow. As the vessels approached each other, and tHe Knight had broadened off considerably upou"the,starboard bow, . showed to Gulf Stream her red light;,.lllJ 'well as her. green light as before. This .wastbe clearest possible evidence that a collision threatened the failure of the Knight. to bercourse, and. that she was endeavoring to cross The 'officer in charge understood it. the bowofithe It was bis. a.pty, und,et !>qch circumstances, by article 18, to stop and back. .There was ample opportunity to avoid collision by doing this after the <19Ul'se,'Qfthe Knight was evident, as is shown both by the direct testimony, and by the further swing of three.to four ,points by the Gulf Stream before collision. Instead of observing this duty, the Gulf Stream.put berhelm harda7starbo.ard, and continued on with ullub;:t.ted speed vessels sffflck. must therefore Qe held in fault, (The JifriRia, 28 Fed. Rep. 249; TIle Khedive, L. R.5. App. The Beryl, 9 Prob. Div. 137, 142; The A:ure:mia, 29. Fed. Rep. 124,)8Jld the damages and costs divided.
so
BOSTWICK II. AM. RICAN FINANcE' Co.
897
BOSTWICK 1'. AMERICAN FINANCE
Co.
(Circuit Court. S. D. New York. November 12,1890.) I'EDERAL COURTS-JUIUSDICTION-CITIZENSHIP-RESIDENCE.
Act Congo March 3,1887, as amended by Act Aug. 13. 1888, provides that no civil suit shall be brought against any person in any other district than that whereof he is an inhabitant; "but where the jurisdiction is founded only on the fact that the action is between citizens of different states. suit shall be brought only in the district of the residence of either the plaintiff or the defendant. t' Held. that, when the jurisdiction dep,ends solely on the citizenship, plaintiff may bring the action in the district whet"ein he resides. without reference to the residence of defendant. if he resides ina dilferent state. .
In Equity. John V. Bouvier, Jr., for the complainant. James Parker, for the defendant. COXE, J. The complaint alleges that the complainant is a citizen of this state and a resident of the city of New York; that the defendant is .a Pennsylvania corporation; and "that its principal and only place of business is at the city of New York, where it transacts all its business aforesaid, and not elsewhere." The action is in the nature of a cJ:editor's bill, in aid of a judgment heretofore recovered in an action in this coutt, which action was commenced by complainant in the Ilupreme court of New York in November, 1888,and was removed to this court by the defendant upon the ground that defendant was a foreign corporation. The defendant appears and interposes a special plea, insisting that the court has no jurisdictionfor the reason that the defendant is not a citizen or inhabitant of this state or found within this district. There is no proof as to the manner in which the defendant was brought into court, and no question arises as to the regularity of the service of the writ. If a question of kind exists it should have been raised by motion to set aside the service. Robinson v. Stock-Yard 00., 12 Fed. Rep. 361; Golden v. The Morning News, 42 Fed. Rep. 112. Nothing is now before the court but the bill and plea. The issue thus raised is plain and simple. Has this court jurisdiction of an action in which the complainant is a citizen of New York and a resident of this district, and the defendant a citizen of Pennsylvania? It is thought that it has. The act of March 3, 1887, amended August 13, 1888,) provides that the circuit court shall have jurisdiction orsuits at law or in equity where there is a controversy between citizens of different states; that no civil suit shall be brought against any person by any original process in any other district than that whereof he is an inhabitant; "but where the jurisdiction is founded only on the fact that the action is between citizens of different states, suits shall be brought only in the district of the residence of either the plaintiff or the defendant." The parties here are citizens of different states, and the complainant is a resident of the district where the suit is brought. v.4SF.no.la-57