) 122 Misc. Rep. 149, 202 N.Y.S. 568, 1924 A.M.C. 1454; Clark v. Montezuma Trans. Co., 217 App. Div. 172, 216 N.Y.S. 295, 1926 A.M.C. 954; Primero Muti, Adm'x, v. Hoey and Salvatore Sabbatino, etc., 221 App. Div. 688, 224 N.Y.S. 662, 1928 A.M.C. 79; International Stevedoring Co. v. Haverty, 272 U.S. 50, 47 S. Ct. 19, 71 L. Ed. 157, 1926 A.M.C. 1638; In re Ross, 140 U.S. 453, 473, 475, 11 S. Ct. 897, 35 L. Ed. 581; The Pinar Del Rio (C.C.A.) 16 F.2d 984, 1927 A.M.C. 268; The Hanna Nielsen (C.C.A.) 273 F. 173; Rainey v. New York P.S.S. Co. (C.C.A.) 216 F. 449, 454, L.R.A. 1916A, 1149; The Wildenhus, 120 U.S. 1; 7 S. Ct. 383, 30 L. Ed. 565; In re Rodgers, 150 U.S. 249, 14 S. Ct. 109, 37 L. Ed. 1071; Thompson Towing Wrecking Ass'n v. McGregor (C.C.A.) 207 F. 209; The Sarpfos, 1925 A.M.C. 137; The Cuzco (D.C.) 225 F. 169; Geraci, Adm'r, v. Cunard S.S. Co., 120 Misc. Rep. 607, 200 N.Y.S. 132, 1923 A.M.C. 976; United States Shipping Board, etc., v. Greenwald (C.C.A.) 16 F.2d 948; The Falco (D.C.) 15 F.2d 604; affd. (C.C.A.) 20 F.2d 363; Cuba R.R. Co. v. Crosby, 222 U.S. 473, 32 S. Ct. 132, 56 L. Ed. 274, 38 L.R.A. (N.S.) 40; Standard Oil Co. of New York v. Tampico Nav. Co. (D.C.) 21 F.2d 795; The Samnanger (D.C.) 298 F. 620; Panama Electric Ry. Co. v. Moyers (C.C.A.) 249 F. 19; The City of Atlanta (D.C.) 17 F.2d 308; Columbia-Knickerbocker Trust Co. v. Abbot (C.C.A.) 247 F. 833; Banco de Sonora v. Bankers' Mutual Casualty Co., 124 Iowa 576, 100 N.W. 532. The general rule is that the District Court has jurisdiction of a controversy such as the present is now made to appear.

The same result is reached when the injury occurs in a foreign nation which has provisions similar to workmen's compensation. The Falco, D.C.E.D.N.Y. 1926, 15 F.2d 604, affirmed 2 Cir., 1927, 20 F.2d 362; Beyer v. Hamburg-American S.S. Co., C.C.S.D.N.Y. 1909, 171 F. 582. Appellee contends, however, that tort principles compel us only to apply tort law.

There seems to be no authority for an order requiring the bond. See United States Merchants' & Shippers' Insurance Company v. A/S den Norske Afrika Og Australie Line (The Tricolor), D.C., 1 F.Supp. 934, affirmed, 2 Cir., 65 F.2d 392; Goldman v. Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd., D.C., 101 F. 467; Malcomess & Co., Ltd. v. S/S New Texas and Elder Dempster & Co., Ltd., 1926 A.M.C. 1514; The Lady Drake, D.C., 1 F.Supp. 317; The Falco, D.C., 15 F.2d 604, affirmed, 2 Cir., 20 F.2d 362; The Knappingsborg, D.C., 26 F.2d 935. Canada Malting Co. v. Paterson Steamships, Ltd., 285 U.S. 413, 52 S.Ct. 413, 76 L.Ed. 837 is not to the contrary.