American Petroleum Co. v. The Veendam

46 F. 489, 1891 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Illinois
DecidedJune 5, 1891
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 46 F. 489 (American Petroleum Co. v. The Veendam) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
American Petroleum Co. v. The Veendam, 46 F. 489, 1891 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65 (S.D. Ill. 1891).

Opinion

Brown, J.

The above libel was filed to obtain compensation for salvage services rendered by the libelant’s steam-ship La Flandre, a three-masted tank steam-ship of about 1,509 tons net register, valued at $200,-000, to the respondent’s mail and passenger steam-ship Veendam, on a voyage from Rotterdam to New York in May, 1891. The Veendam is a large steamer, 432 feet long by 40 feet beam, and of 2,209 tons net register. Her value, with cargo, freight, and passenger money, was $375,000. On this voyage she had 600 passengers, besides officers and crew about 100. At about 2:30 p. m. of May 15th her shaft broke, when she was about 1,350 miles from New York, and about 900 miles due east from Halifax. Preparations were made to attempt to repair the shaft, and signals for help were given. On the, morning of May 16th, the lights of La Flandre being reported, additional signals of distress by rockets and by flags asking assistance were displayed. In answer to these signals, La Flandre went along-side of the Veendam, and was requested to take her in tow. One end of the Veendam’s hawser of about 90 fathoms was drawn to La Flandre, and the other end was shackled to the Veendam’s anchor cable. The compressor of the Veendam’s windlass broke, causing 150 fathoms of the anchor chain to run out before it could be stopped, and the outboard weight was too great for the Veen-dam’s windlass to heave it in again. At 9:30 a. m. on the 16th La Flandre commenced to tow, making about 4⅛ knots per hour, her speed being impeded by the great drag of the anchor chain. The weather was hazy , the sea favorable. The towing continued until half past 10 o’clock p. m. of Sunday, May 17th, when, it appearing by soundings that they had reached the Grand Bank, they stopped, and the Veendam took in 100 fathoms of chain. After an hour’s delay the towing was resumed. There was then thick fog, which grew more dense towards morning. Fog-horns on fishing vessels were heard, sometimes close aboard, and the most careful watch was necessary. At 5 a. m. on Monday, the 18th, a fishing vessel was so close under La Flandre’s port bow as to require her to port her helm. The Veendam also ported hard, and before they came into line again the towing hawser parted. The fog was then so thick, and the danger of going on so great, that both vessels anchored, about three lengths apart. The distance towed during the previous 48 hours was about 191 miles. During all this time endeavors to repair the Veendam’s shaft had been going on, and at half past 11 on the 18th it was reported to La Flandre that the temporary repairs would soon be complete, and that an attempt would be made by the Veendam to start under her own steam, which was done at 3:30 o’clock that afternoon. [491]*491Captain Roggeveen, of the Veendam, signaled La Flandre to follow him, which she did, making about one knot per hour less speed than the Veendam. At 6 p. m. the latter, to avoid stopping her engine, returned towards La Flandre, and signaled that her engine worked well. At 9:30 p. m. a light fog coming on, the Veendam was lost sight of. No other signals for assistance being seen or heard, La Flandre continued during the night on a course W. by S., as directed by the Veendam ⅛ master. At daylight the Veendam was not to be seen, and, after steaming about for over an hour, the master of La Flandre, concluding that the Veendam required no further assistance, and had gone ahead of him, resumed her course to Philadelphia, where she arrived on May 24th, having lost a little over two days’ time in the performance of these services. In fact, however, about 10 p. m. of the 18th, half an hour after the Veendam was lost sight of in the fog, one of the repair couplings gave way, compelling another stop of about 24 hours, when, the couplings being again repaired, and secured by additional chains, the Veen-dam resumed her course, and, making about 81 knots per hour, arrived without further difficulty in New York at 10 A. m. of May 25th.

1. I cannot doubt that the services rendered in this case were of a salvage nature, as distinguished from ordinary towage. That subject has been several times considered in this court. Such services are treated as salvage when rendered to a disabled ship with the obvious purpose of relieving her from circumstances of danger, either present or reasonably to be apprehended, and not merely to expedite her passage. The Saragossa, 1 Ben. 552; The Emily B. Souder, 15 Blatchf. 185; McConnochie v. Kerr, 9 Fed. Rep. 50, 53; The Plymouth Rock, Id. 413, 416. The sails of the Veendam were not sufficient for safe navigation in her situation. She was 900 miles from the nearest port, and during the 12 hours before La Flandre was sighted she made only about 1⅛ knots per hour under sail. Her ability to make repairs to her shaft secure enough to proceed under her own steam-power was evidently uncertain, and could only be determined by trial, and she had 600 passengers on board. The situation was, therefore, manifestly one of reasonable apprehension of danger. A disabled steamer in mid-ocean is not in a safe place, or in a safe condition. The signals of distress and the call for help so imported, and I cannot doubt that the service which the one party asked and the other gave was understood by both to be of that salvage nature which ordinarily belongs to a towage service rendered in answer to signals of distress to disabled steamers at sea.

2. It is objected that La Flandre did not tow the Veendam into port, or to a place of safety, and that when her shaft gave out the second time she was in as much danger as at first; so that La Flandre is not legally entitled to salvage compensation, because not successful. The Edam, 13 Fed. Rep. 135; The Algitha, 17 Fed. Rep. 651; The Aberdeen, 27 Fed. Rep. 479. The principle invoked is elementary. It is applied when the ship is lost, or when the attempt to rescue her is abandoned. In the cases cited, the salvors voluntarily abandoned the service. Here the [492]*492ship was saved, and the service was not voluntarily abandoned. On the contrary, La Flandre, from the time she entered upon the service, diligently performed all the duties of her undertaking, and followed strictly the directions of the Veendam ⅛ master. She lost sight of the Veendam, not by any actor neglect of her own, but because the Veendam ran away from her, out of sight and out of reach of communication, after receiving all the help she wanted, or was willing to wait for. The Veendam thereby terminated the salvage service by her own act, and took the risk of what might follow.

It is not essential to a salvage service that the salvors should attend the vessel aided into port. On principle, it is sufficient that the needed help be given so long as is necessary; that is, until the apprehended danger is overcome, whether the service terminates in port or at sea. The code of the country to which this ship belonged (Netherland Code, § 561) recognizes this principle in providing salvage remuneration where ship and cargo “are brought either to a safe place at sea, or into a safe port.” When, as in this case, the peril arises from disabled machinery, and from the doubt whether it is possible for the ship to make temporary repairs, compensation for salvage services is earned if the services are continued as long as the vessel requires them, i. e., until the repairs are so complete that the vessel is no longer in danger, because fully able to take care of herself. In the case of The Great Eastern, N. Y. Trans. Nov. 13, 1864, (cited in The Alaska, 23 Fed. Rep.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Atlantic Transport Co. v. United States
42 F.2d 583 (Court of Claims, 1930)
The Santurce
136 F. 682 (S.D. New York, 1905)
The Flottbek
118 F. 954 (Ninth Circuit, 1902)
The Henry Steers, Jr.
110 F. 578 (E.D. New York, 1901)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
46 F. 489, 1891 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-petroleum-co-v-the-veendam-ilsd-1891.