the suit proceed for the assessment of damages. This Court instructed libellant that before it would take any action on the motion, notice of the hearing should be given to Black Sea.
18. On the same day, proctor for libellant notified Mor-mack that libellant would move for a default decree on April 7, 1952, before this Court. Mor-mack wrote libellant's proctor in response to the notice and informed him that the matter had been referred to Amtorg.
19. On September 25, 1952, proctor for libellant appeared at the hearing on the motion list. Although Black Sea had sufficient notice of the motion for default, no one appeared on its behalf. The following day this Court signed a decree adjudging Black Sea in default, that the amended libel be taken pro confesso against it, and that the suit proceed ex parte for the ascertainment of damages.
20. On October 7, 1952, the matter came on for trial before this Court upon the issue of damages against U.S.S.R. and Black Sea. No one appeared of record at the trial for the respondents. The trial proceeded to conclusion in their absence.
21. On February 4, 1960, this Court made its findings and conclusions, that libellant's injuries are permanent and will disable him from performing heavy work in the future, and executed a final decree in favor of libellant and against the U.S.S.R. and Black Sea in the amount of $49,231.92.
22. On February 15, 1960, proctor for libellant wrote letters to Black Sea in care of Amtorg in New York, and to the Embassy of the U.S.S.R. in Washington, D.C., advising of the entry of judgment and asking when payment might be expected. By letter dated February 17, 1960, Amtorg acknowledged said letter and returned it, suggesting that the letter be addressed directly to Black Sea at Odessa, U.S.S.R. There was no response from the Embassy of the U.S.S.R. On February 19, 1960, proctor for libellant wrote a letter to Black Sea in Odessa, U.S.S.R., similarly advising of the entry of judgment and asking when payment might be expected. No response was ever received.
23. On February 26, 1960, and March 29, 1960, proctor for libellant wrote to the Secretary of State, Washington, D.C., advising of representation of libellant and of the judgment which had been entered against respondents. Said letters requested the assistance of the Department of State in collecting said judgment. After further correspondence between the proctor for libellant and the Department of State, wherein copies of this Court's findings, conclusions and final decree were sent to the Department of State, by letter dated July 13, 1960, the Department of State advised counsel for libellant that said Department was sending copies of the findings, conclusions and final decree to the American Embassy at Moscow, U.S.S.R., with instructions to transmit them to the Government of the U.S.S.R. and to request information regarding procedure for the collection of the judgment. No response was received from U.S.S.R. or from Black Sea or any representative.
24. On June 13, 1966, Black Sea filed the motion, now before this Court for disposition, to set aside the following:
(a) Service of process upon it on the grounds that it "had no contact with the District at the time of service of process to render it subject to this Court's jurisdiction and that Moore-McCormack, Inc. was not respondent's agent for service of process within FRCP 4(d)(3), (7) or Rule 2180 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.";
(b) Decree of this Court amending the libel to name Black Sea as a party;
(c) Decree of this Court adjudging Black Sea in default; and
(d) Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and the final decree made pursuant to them.
Attached to the motion were two affidavits, one by an employee of Amtorg and the other by an employee of Mor-mack.
25. Libellant has filed an "answer" to the motion to set aside, under oath of his proctor in admiralty who handled the matter from its inception, denying and controverting substantially the allegations of the affidavits filed on behalf of Black Sea, and averring additional facts.
This Court, to afford Black Sea a last chance, instructed libellant that, before the default motion be heard, additional notice be given to it to remove any doubt that it is aware of the situation. In response to such instruction, libellant's proctor wrote to Mor-mack advising it that libellant would move for a default decree on April 7, 1952, enclosing a copy of the proposed motion, and inquired whether anyone would appear to oppose the motion. Mor-mack wrote on April 3, that the letter had been referred to Amtorg.
26. The provision of paragraph 1(e) of the Agreement requiring Mor-mack to "take all necessary steps to protect the interest of the vessel in connection * * * with all claims that may be made against the vessel." is broad enough to authorize Mor-mack to accept service of process on behalf of Black Sea for asserted causes of action which arose out of transactions, occurrences or events which took place upon a vessel operated by Black Sea while that vessel was in this District and subject to the terms of the Agreement.
27. At the time of service of process of Black Sea through Mor-mack, Black Sea had such contacts within this District that the maintenance of this suit against it here does not offend the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice with regard to Black Sea, and satisfies the requirements of due process of law and personal jurisdiction. See International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S. Ct. 154, 90 L. Ed. 95 (1945); McGee v. International Life Insurance Co., 355 U.S. 220, 223, 78 S. Ct. 199, 2 L. Ed. 2d 223 (1957). Also see Gkiafis v. S.S. Yiosinas, 4 Cir. 1965, 342 F.2d 546 (Opinion by Chief Judge Sobeloff).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. This Court has admiralty jurisdiction over the subject matter of this suit.
2. Mor-mack was the agent of Black Sea for the purpose of accepting service of process on its behalf at the time a deputy United States Marshal served a citation and a copy of the amended libel upon Mor-mack on February 28, 1952.
3. Service of process upon Mor-mack at that time was a valid service upon Black Sea.
4. This Court has in personam jurisdiction over Black Sea for purposes of this suit.
Black Sea's motion, filed June 13, 1966, will be dismissed.