Baker v. Cargo & Materials of the Slobodna

35 F. 537, 1887 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Florida
DecidedMay 3, 1887
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 35 F. 537 (Baker v. Cargo & Materials of the Slobodna) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Baker v. Cargo & Materials of the Slobodna, 35 F. 537, 1887 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167 (S.D. Fla. 1887).

Opinion

Locke, J.

This vessel, laden with 4,500 hales of cotton, from New Orleans, bound to Reval, wrent ashore on a projecting point of rock between French and Pickles reefs, on the Florida coast, about 100 miles from Key West, at about 9 o’clock on the morning of the 16th of March, 1887, where she was soon boarded by the principal libelant in this case, who offered his assistance. The vessel lay upon the extreme outer point of the reef, in an open and exposed position, on hard rock bottom. She was under considerable sail, with a fresh wind, when she struck, and went ashore so as to be lifted, at high water, fully two feet from her ordinary draft. For a time the master thought he would be able to get his vessel afloat, so declined to accept aid; but at length, at about 4 o’clock that afternoon, finding his efforts ineffectual, he accepted the assistance of the libelants, all professional, licensed wreckers, with several of their vessels. They carried out a 4,000-pound anchor, with 30 fathoms of chain and 85 fathoms of 8-inch hawser, and let it go in deep water, and, as the tide rose, heaved heavy strains with all the power they were able with a fourfold purchase led to the capstan. A part of the libelants.manned the pumps, as there was found to be six feet of water in the hold, and finally reduced it to four feet. They hotfe with what force they could until two hours past high water that night, but were unable to move the vessel. A portion of the libeladts then went to breaking out and moving cotton aft; others constantly pumping in order to keep the water down. The next morning a schooner was hauled along-side to take cotton, but by the time she had received 29 bales the wind increased and the weather became so bad that she was compelled to drop off, and all the vessels, with one exception, had to leave their anchorage outside the reef and go inside to seek a harbor, leaving 60 of the libelants on board. These continued pumping, breaking out, and moving cargo aft, and heaving at the anchor, as the tide rose. At 4 o’clock that afternoon—the 17th—the weather became worse; the wind shifted to the southward,— a dangerous point,—and a violent squall struck the ship with such force as to lift her off the bottom, so that the libelants succeeded in moving her astern, nearly, if not quite, half her length, but unfortunately the anchor at that time dragged; the ship, partly relieved from the bottom, swung broadside upon the reef, and thumped and pounded, heavily, increasing the leak so rapidly that within 40 minutes the water gained, notwithstanding constant pumping, from 4 feet to 15, the depth she was in, where it continued. After pumping a long time the libelants concluded that the vessel had bilged, and proceeded to save cargo.

The salvors already represented by libel or petition have saved 4,310 bales, and an amount of loose cotton estimated at about 142 bales, and others are still at work saving what yet may be got from the wreck. It is true, the vessel has been lost, but the cargo has or will be almost entirely saved, though in a damaged condition.

[539]*539There were 335 men and 41 vessels, two of which were steamers, engaged in the general consort, and who worked all the time the weather would possibly permit, for a month, lacking 2 days. Part of the time it was impossible to work on board or lie along-side. Nine vessels and 69 men have also worked more or less on their own account, and saved 861 bales outside of the general consort. The work has been laborious in the extreme; the bales of cotton were pressed into the ship with much force at iirst, and, being wet, had become greatly swollen, They were very heavy, many of them weighing over a half ton as they came out of the water. During the latter part of the service the bottom of the vessel was so crushed up that it held the bales under the beams, so that it was almost impossible to break them out. Many of them were broken, or necessarily pulled apart, until the water was filled with a pulpy mass of loose cotton, broken ties, and dunnage that made it very difficult, and, to a certain extent, dangerous, to dive through it. The vessel so worked herself down into or among the rocks that there was 17 or 18 feet of water through which the lower tiers of cotton were dived up. The salvors had no appliances for diving or saving labor, but it all had to bo dived for by naked divers, and hoisted by hand. The bales had become so saturated and heavy that they would not float, but each had to be broken out and slung under water. About 1,700 bales have been dived up from more than 6, and from that to 18, feet of water, and about 150 of loose saved in the same way.

The great question in this case that must influence the amount of salvage is, Did the salvors do their whole duty in their attempts to save the property? First, was there any dereliction of duty in not preventing the vessel from swinging again harder aground when partly relieved from the bottom? And, secondly, could they have pumped out and saved her, after she had been partly lightened of her cargo? Salvors are held to a strict accountability for everything which is omitted to be done by them for the saving of property by every means within their power; and if from lack of energy, judgment, or skill they fail in one particular, the amount of salvage awarded, if any, will be reduced accordingly. It is not only honesty of purpose, but skill, energy, and good judgment in using every appliance which they can possibly command that is demanded. But courts cannot require impossibilities of them and must only consider the means under their control. In this case, was it within their power to have foreseen and prevented by any degree of care or diligence the dragging of the anchor? In the case of The St. James, (records of this court, 1872,) the vessel was permitted to swing back onto thereof by the breaking of the hawser, wdien the salvors had shown a most deplorable lack of skill or judgment in using a small line to lengthen out a large hawser, when it was within their power to have used a larger one, or increased the strength of that used by several doublings; and the entire salvage was forfeited. But in this case the depth of -water was properly selected, the largest anchor carried out in the best direction with the strongest hawser that could be obtained; the weight of the anchor was such that no reasonable man would have considered it necessary to back [540]*540it with another, but would have presumed it to hold, in bottom such as it was known to be, as much or more than the hawser. It seems that at the time of the service any one would have conceded that everything within the power of the salvors had been done to float the ship; and but for the change and increase of the wind, the suddenness of the violent squall and sea, and the accidental breaking out or dragging of the anchor through the rock where it first held, it would have been successful.

The suddenness and severity of the wind and squall prevented anything being'done after the anchor had started until it was too late, and the vessel was evidently bilged and leaking so badly that no power of the libel-ants could control the amount of water in her. I am not satisfied that anything more could have been done to float the vessel than was before she was started from the bottom, or to prevent her going further ashore again, as she did.

After partly discharging her, the question was very properly suggested, both by the wreckers and by a board of survey, whether she could not then be floated and brought to port; but in order to have done that it would have been necessary to control the water coming into her, or undoubtedly she would have sunk in deep water.

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

Related

The Thornley
98 F. 735 (Fifth Circuit, 1899)
Duff v. Merritt
86 F. 675 (Second Circuit, 1898)
The Mary E. Riggs
16 F. Cas. 977 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York, 1878)
The Howard
12 F. Cas. 630 (D. Maryland, 1873)
The Aquila
1 F. Cas. 1077 (S.D. Florida, 1871)
The Barney Eaton
2 F. Cas. 885 (D. Wisconsin, 1858)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
35 F. 537, 1887 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baker-v-cargo-materials-of-the-slobodna-flsd-1887.