Duff v. Merritt

86 F. 675, 1898 U.S. App. LEXIS 2328
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided April 7, 1898·No. Nos. 74-102·Published·Cited by 26 cases

Opinion

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts). It will be most convenient first to ascertain what is the total amount salved as the result of the service rendered. Inasmuch as the libelants have not appealed, it may be assumed that the district judge correctly held as to the expenses which should be deducted in order to determine the amount of cargo actually salved. It will be remembered that the ship sold for §9,100. It was held in the Eastern district (and no one disputes the finding) that the marshal’s expenses and commissions should be deducted, leaving the amount |8,962.80. ' There are other expenses, however, which are equally a charge against the proceeds, superior to the lien- of salvors, for the reason that, if they had not been incurred, this sum would not have been realized at the sale. What the vessel would bring as she lay at libelants’ wharf, Staten Island, on February 27th, just as she had been torn off the beach, leaking, and with her holds full of débris, and what she subsequently brought in Brooklyn because of these disbursements, are manifestly two widely different sums. These items are as follows: Inward pilotage, $78.34, and $90.54 for dues and fees paid the collector of the port upon entering the vessel at the custom house, do not seem to be disputed; nor does-the sum of $1.90 paid to the British consul upon entry of the vessel. There was paid $172 for towing required to get the vessel from Staten Island, where she was first taken, to Brooklyn, and into dry dock. There was paid $12 for running lines from the vessel to the wharf while she was at Brooklyn; $260 for services of a watchman to keep thieves and others from making depredations, and in order to protect her against loss from other causes; and $123 for wharfage. It was necessary for her to be alongside a wharf while discharging, and while not on the dry dock. An item of $1,207.04 paid for the use of dry dock represent s the charges for two separate dockings at the Erie Basin. The first docking was necessary in order to stop the leaks which had been caused by her stranding, and to keep the vessel afloat, and to enable temporary repairs to be made. The second docking was necessary in order to place her in a position where her bottom and hull could be examined by intending purchasers after it had been finally determined to sell her; all efforts at an adjustment without suit having failed. An item of $1,689.08 was paid for the making of temporary repairs, which were necessary in order to keep the ship afloat, and for cleaning the holds, which was necessary in order that the engines and bottom of the vessel could he examined by intending purchasers. There was also paid $96 for ballast logs, which were required to keep the vessel from capsizing after her cargo had been removed; her ballast not being such, or in such condition, as to prevent this. These items aggregate $3,129.90, to which the usual commission on disbursements, 2| per cent. ($78.24), should be added, making $3,208.14. There is no dispute as to the reasonableness of the amount of any of these charges, and it would certainly seem that they would have to he made by some one, in order to secure any substantial price for the property offered for sale. They are represented in the $9,100, and that sum, less these items, was the value of the salved vessel as she was brought to libelants’ wharf at Staten Island. Logically, they are disbursements [678] properly to be made by salvors, and repaid to them independent of salvage, as was done with the towage to place of sale in the case of The William Smith, 59 Fed. 615. That the money to pay these disbursements was in fact advanced by owners’ agents is no ground for declining to repay them in their proper order. And see The Waterloo, 1 Blatchf. & H. 114, Fed. Cas. No. 17,257. Deducting from the $9,100 the marshal’s charges ($137.20) and these additional disbursements ($3,208.14), there is left $5,754.66 as the true value of the salved property represented by the ship; and, since the district judge in the Southern district has found that $11,405.66 is the true value of the salved property represented by the cargo, it follows that the total amount awarded by the decrees of the two courts ($6,550.92 + $11,405.-66), viz. $17,956.58, actually exceeds the total amount salved ($5,754.66 + $11,405.66), vis. $17,160.32.

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

Duff v. Merritt, 86 F. 675, 1898 U.S. App. LEXIS 2328 (2d Cir. 1898).

86 F. 675 (Duff v. Merritt) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Arnaud Girard v. M/Y Quality Time
596 F. App'x 846 (Eleventh Circuit, 2015)
Kentwood Ltd. v. United States
930 F. Supp. 227 (E.D. Virginia, 1996)
B. v. Bureau Wijsmuller v. United States
487 F. Supp. 156 (S.D. New York, 1979)
Conolly v. S.S. Karina II
302 F. Supp. 675 (E.D. New York, 1969)
Nicholas E. Vernicos Shipping Co. v. United States
349 F.2d 465 (Second Circuit, 1965)
Nicholas Vernicos Shipping Company v. United States
349 F.2d 465 (Second Circuit, 1965)
Baretich v. United States
97 F. Supp. 600 (S.D. New York, 1951)
Waterman SS Corporation v. Dean
171 F.2d 408 (Fourth Circuit, 1948)
Hamburg-American Line v. United States
168 F.2d 47 (First Circuit, 1948)
Usatorre v. Compania Argentina Navegacion Mihanovich
64 F. Supp. 370 (S.D. New York, 1945)
Aslaksen v. United States
273 F. 241 (N.D. Ohio, 1921)
The Kia Ora
246 F. 143 (E.D. Virginia, 1917)
The Alcazar
227 F. 633 (E.D. North Carolina, 1915)
The Rockland & Rockport Lime Co. No. 1
175 F. 524 (E.D. New York, 1910)
The Job H. Jackson
161 F. 1015 (E.D. North Carolina, 1908)
The Flora Rodgers
152 F. 286 (D. South Carolina, 1907)