Rinaldi

This matter comes before this court on respondent’s motion to dismiss the libel, exceptions to the libel, and mandate to show cause why the attachment of the vessel by the Marshal for the Northern District of California should not be vacated. Each raises the issue of this court’s jurisdiction. The case comes here by transfer from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in which the libel in personam and in rem for cargo damage was filed on March 30, 1950.

The record discloses that the in per-sonam respondents were certain Norwegian corporations who appeared on the bill of .lading as owners of the respondent ship which at that time was operating out of the Port of New York. Service of process .was had on the in personam respondents. Some months later these respondents filed an answer, later supplemented by an affidavit (dated September 25, 1951), stating that they were not the owners or operators of the respondent vessel and that their names on the bill of lading were a mistake and unauthorized. By the time libelants had been advised of this the vessel had transferred operations to the Pacific and was no longer subject to arrest in the Southern…