Also known as: actions in rem · in rem action · in rem actions · in rem
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A judicial proceeding directed against a specific item of property rather than against an individual or entity. The proceeding determines rights in the property itself and binds all persons with interests in that property.
Anthony Arnold sued Argonaut Shipping in State B for unpaid consulting fees arising from work performed entirely in State A. He attached a vessel owned by the company that was docked in State B solely for repairs unrelated to the contract. The court dismissed the action because the vessel's presence alone supplied no minimum contacts with the claim.
Andre Antoine filed an action in rem against the vessel M/V Horizon after the ship damaged his dock during unloading. The court arrested the vessel under admiralty rules and allowed the proceeding to continue directly against the ship as the defendant.
In 1987, William Robert Miller, a resident of Mississippi, moved to Pennsylvania to seek employment. He was hired by American Dredging Company, a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business in New Jersey, to work as a seaman aboard the MV John R., a tug operating on the Delaware River. During the course of that employment Miller was injured. After receiving medical treatment in Pennsylvania and New York, he returned to Mississippi where he continued to be treated by local physicians. On December 1, 1989, Miller filed this action in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Louisiana. He sought relief under the Jones Act, which authorizes a seaman who suffers personal injury in the course of his employment to bring an action for damages at law. State and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction over such claims. Miller also requested relief under general maritime law for unseaworthiness, for wages, and for maintenance and cure. The trial court granted American Dredging Company's motion to dismiss the action under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, holding that it was bound to apply that doctrine by federal maritime law. The Louisiana Court of Appeal for the Fourth District affirmed. The Supreme Court of Louisiana reversed, holding that Article 123(C) of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure, which renders the doctrine of forum non conveniens unavailable in Jones Act and maritime law cases brought in Louisiana state courts, is not preempted by federal maritime law. American Dredging Company filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, which the United States Supreme Court granted.
View caseAdam Anderson brought a third-party complaint in an admiralty case against a barge that had caused a collision. Because the claim fell within maritime jurisdiction, the court permitted the complaint to proceed in rem against the barge itself.
The respondents, time charterers of the steamship Bjornefjord, filed a libel against Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. to recover for the loss of use of the steamer between August 1 and August 15, 1917. By the terms of the charter party the steamer was to be docked at least once in every six months. Payment of the hire was to be suspended until she was again in proper state for service. In accordance with these terms the vessel was delivered to the petitioner and docked. While there the propeller was so injured by the petitioner’s negligence that a new one had to be put in, thus causing the delay for which this suit is brought. The petitioner seems to have had no notice of the charter party until the delay had begun. On August 10, 1917, it was formally advised by the respondents that they should hold it liable. It settled with the owners on December 7, 1917, and received a release of all their claims. The present libel in a cause of contract and damage seems to have been brought in reliance upon an allegation. The allegation stated that the contract for dry docking between the petitioner and the owners was made for the benefit of the libellants and was incidental to the aforesaid charter party. The District Court allowed recovery on the ground that the respondents had a property right in the vessel. It is not argued that there was a demise. The owners remained in possession. The libellants recovered in both Courts below. A writ of certiorari was granted by this Court.
View caseAlexandra Armstrong sought to foreclose a preferred mortgage on a foreign-flagged cargo ship located in a U.S. port. The court allowed the action in rem against the vessel under federal maritime statutes even though the owner was a foreign state.
In 1995 the Supreme Court reviewed a dispute over a shipment of Moroccan oranges and lemons purchased by Bacchus Associates, a New York partnership that distributes fruit wholesale in the Northeastern United States, from Galaxie Negoce, S.A., a Moroccan supplier. Bacchus chartered the refrigerated cargo vessel M/V Sky Reefer, owned by the Panamanian company M. H. Maritima, S.A. and time-chartered to the Japanese company Nichiro Gyogyo Kaisha, Ltd., to carry the cargo from Morocco to Massachusetts. Stevedores hired by Galaxie loaded and stowed the fruit, after which Nichiro issued a standard form bill of lading to Galaxie as shipper and consignee; Galaxie later tendered the bill to Bacchus under a letter of credit. Clause 3 of the bill of lading provided that the contract would be governed by Japanese law and that any dispute would be referred to arbitration in Tokyo before the Tokyo Maritime Arbitration Commission of The Japan Shipping Exchange, Inc., with the award to be final and binding. When the vessel's hatches were opened for discharge in Massachusetts, thousands of boxes of oranges had shifted, causing more than $1 million in damage. Bacchus received $733,442.90 from its marine cargo insurer, petitioner Vimar Seguros y Reaseguros, S.A., which became subrogated pro tanto to Bacchus's rights. Vimar Seguros and Bacchus then sued Maritima in personam and the M/V Sky Reefer in rem in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The defendants moved to stay the action and compel arbitration in Tokyo under the bill of lading clause and section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act. The plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing that the arbitration clause was unenforceable both as a contract of adhesion and because the inconvenience and costs of proceeding in Japan would lessen liability under COGSA section 3(8). The district court rejected both arguments, granted the motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration, retained jurisdiction pending arbitration, and certified the controlling question of law for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. section 1292(b). The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the order to arbitrate. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split on the enforceability of foreign arbitration clauses in maritime bills of lading.
View caseAustin Abbott attached a parcel of land in State B to collect a judgment obtained against Adrian Aguilar for a contract breach that occurred in State A. The court held that the land's mere presence did not confer jurisdiction over the unrelated personal claim.
In February 1866, J.H. Mitchell obtained a judgment in an Oregon circuit court against Neff for less than $300 in an action for attorney services. At that time, Neff resided outside Oregon, received no personal service of process, and made no appearance in the case. The judgment was entered by default following constructive service by publication as authorized by the Oregon Code for non-resident defendants possessing property within the state. The Oregon Code also provided for attachment of a non-resident's property in money actions. No such attachment occurred with respect to the land at issue. Instead, after the judgment, an execution issued, leading to a levy on the land and its sale at a sheriff's auction. Pennoyer purchased the property at that sale and received a sheriff's deed. Separately, in 1866, the United States issued a patent to Neff for the same tract of land under the Donation Law of Oregon, which Neff valued at $15,000. Neff then brought suit against Pennoyer in the circuit court to recover possession of the premises based on his patent title. The lower court held the Oregon judgment invalid because of deficiencies in the affidavits used to obtain the publication order and to prove publication occurred. The Supreme Court of the United States granted review to consider the validity of the state court judgment and the resulting sheriff's sale.
View caseAlliance Holdings challenged the government's seizure of equipment used in a federal violation. The court treated the proceeding as one in rem against the equipment and required direct notice to known owners before forfeiture.
The United States entered into a contract with the Rice Shipbuilding Corporation for the construction of eleven navy personnel boats. The contract included a provision allowing the Government to terminate upon default and require the contractor to transfer title and deliver all completed and uncompleted work along with manufacturing materials. Petitioners furnished materials to Rice for use in building the boats. Upon Rice's default, the Government exercised its option with respect to ten of the boat hulls still under construction. Rice executed an itemized Instrument of Transfer of Title conveying the hulls and materials on hand to the United States. The Government then removed all of these properties to out-of-state naval shipyards for completion of the boats. Petitioners had not been paid for their materials at the time of the transfer. Petitioners claimed they held valid liens under Maine law on the hulls and the materials at the time of transfer. Maine law provided that whoever furnishes labor or materials for building a vessel has a lien on it and on the materials before they become part of the vessel. Because the transfer made the liens unenforceable due to sovereign immunity, petitioners sought just compensation under the Fifth Amendment. The Court of Claims held that petitioners never acquired valid liens on the hulls or materials transferred to the Government. It relied on prior precedent and concluded there had been no taking of any property owned by the petitioners. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case.
View caseA plaintiff may proceed in rem when a federal statute or maritime lien authorizes an action against the property itself, such as a vessel subject to a maritime lien.
No. When the claim is unrelated to the property, its mere presence does not establish the minimum contacts required for personal jurisdiction over the owner.
Due process requires that known or easily ascertainable owners receive notice by mail or equivalent direct means rather than publication alone.
Yes. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14(a)(6) expressly permits a third-party complaint to proceed in rem when the claim falls within admiralty or maritime jurisdiction.
…assertion of jurisdiction over the individual defendants (appellants) in this case cannot be sustained on the basis of the in rem jurisdiction theory that the stock in the corporation was “located” in Delaware and was the subject of the lawsuit. Pp. 196-200. (a) The fiction that a court’s power to adjudicate a…