285 U.S. 413 (1932)
Three libels in admiralty in personam were brought in the federal court for western New York. Owners of cargo laden on the steamer Yorkton sought recovery for loss from the sinking of that vessel. The sinking resulted from a collision with respondent’s steamer Mantadoc in Lake Superior on the American side of the international boundary line.1
The respondent moved in each case that the District Court decline jurisdiction. The ground was that all parties were citizens of Canada and the controversy concerned matters properly for Canadian courts.2 The District Court granted the motions.3 The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the decrees.4 This Court granted certiorari.5
Shortly after the collision, the Wreck Commissioner of Canada held a formal investigation as required by law. The investigation concerned the circumstances of the collision. It determined that the masters of both vessels were at fault.6 The respondent then instituted a proceeding in the admiralty court of Canada. That proceeding sought judicial determination of liability between the colliding vessels and their owners.7
The libellants’ motive for invoking United States jurisdiction appears in affidavits. The affidavits were filed with the exceptions to the libel.8 Under Canadian law, if both vessels were at fault, each would be liable for not more than half the loss.9 The salvaged value of the Yorkton might not suffice to pay its share.10 Under United States law, the innocent cargo owner can recover full damages from the non-carrying vessel.11
All the parties were citizens of Canada. Both colliding vessels were registered under Canadian laws. Each was owned by a Canadian corporation. The officers and crew of each vessel were citizens and residents of Canada. They would not be available for compulsory attendance in the District Court. The cargo was shipped under a Canadian bill of lading from one Canadian port to another. The collision occurred where inland waters narrowed to a neck. The District Court concluded that the vessels proceeded in United States waters unintentionally.12
The District Court ordered the respondent to appear and file security in any Canadian admiralty action. This ensured petitioners would not lose the security from the foreign attachment upon dismissal of the libels.13
Whether a federal district court must exercise jurisdiction over admiralty libels between foreign parties when the collision occurred within United States territorial waters?14
Courts of admiralty have complete jurisdiction over suits of a maritime nature between foreigners, but the question is one of discretion in every case, and the court will not take cognizance of the case if justice would be as well done by remitting the parties to their home forum.15 This discretion exists even when the cause of action arose within the territorial waters of the United States.16
No. The libellants concede that in a suit in admiralty between foreigners it is ordinarily within the discretion of the District Court to refuse to retain jurisdiction.17 The argument that the jurisdiction was obligatory because the collision occurred within the territorial waters of the United States is not well founded.18 The suggestion drawn from the language in The Belgenland that such discretion exists only in cases arising beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the country to which the courts belong is without support in either the earlier or the later decisions of this Court.19
The district court was not obligated to exercise jurisdiction over the libels despite the collision occurring in United States waters.20
Whether the district court abused its discretion in declining jurisdiction over these libels?21
The exercise of discretion to decline jurisdiction in admiralty suits between foreigners will not be disturbed unless abused.22
No. All the parties were citizens of Canada. Both the colliding vessels were registered under the laws of Canada and each was owned by a Canadian corporation. The officers and the crew of each vessel were citizens and residents of that country and so would not be available for compulsory attendance in the District Court. The cargo in each case was shipped under a Canadian bill of lading from one Canadian port to another.23
The District Court embodied in the decrees an order that the respondent should appear and file security in any action which might be instituted by the petitioners in the admiralty courts of Canada. This ensured that petitioners would not by dismissal of the libels lose the security gained by the foreign attachment.24 It is difficult to conceive of a state of facts more clearly justifying the refusal of a District Court to retain jurisdiction in a cause between foreigners.25
The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining jurisdiction.26