Hayford v. Doussony

Fifth Circuit

Hayford v. Doussony

42 F.2d 439, 1930 U.S. App. LEXIS 4305

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJuly 28, 1930

DocketNo. 5390

StatusPublished

This text of 42 F.2d 439 (Hayford v. Doussony) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hayford v. Doussony, 42 F.2d 439, 1930 U.S. App. LEXIS 4305 (5th Cir. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

BRYAN, Circuit Judge.

On the original appeal we held that, on the evidence disclosed by the record before us, the Pirate Ship was not engaged in navigation, commerce, or any maritime venture, and consequently that the claims asserted by the libelants were not within the admiralty jurisdiction. The decree of the District Court which sustained those claims as maritime liens was therefore reversed. 32 F.(2d) 605. Before that appeal was taken, the Pirate Ship was sold for $1,500, and the proceeds of sale were distributed pursuant to an order of court to various libelants.

Paul F. Jahncke, purchaser at that sale, filed his petition for rehearing op the ground that all the facts were not disclosed by the record. He stated in his petition that he was not given proper notice of the appeal, and therefore was given permission to file a supplementary transcript of record so as to bring up any evidence that had been omitted from the original record; and a rehearing was granted in order to determine whether there was any new evidence which would affect or change our opinion upon the facts.

There is nothing in the supplementary record that was not stated in substance in the original record. The argument on the rehearing was not based upon any mistake of fact, hut was to the effect that we were wrong in our conclusion of law that the claims asserted were not within the admiralty jurisdiction. But we still think that the question of law was correctly decided, for the reasons stated in our original opinion. It may be that Jahneke has an equitable claim by subrogation as a result of his having paid for appellant’s benefit what may under the state law constitute nonmaritime liens, St. Joseph Land Co. v. MacLean (C. C. A.) 32 F.(2d) 984, 988; but whether he has or not cannot be determined in this proceeding.

The decree is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

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

BRYAN, Circuit Judge.

On the original appeal we held that, on the evidence disclosed by the record before us, the Pirate Ship was not engaged in navigation, commerce, or any maritime venture, and consequently that the claims asserted by the libelants were not within the admiralty jurisdiction. The decree of the District Court which sustained those claims as maritime liens was therefore reversed. 32 F.(2d) 605. Before that appeal was taken, the Pirate Ship was sold for $1,500, and the proceeds of sale were distributed pursuant to an order of court to various libelants.

Paul F. Jahncke, purchaser at that sale, filed his petition for rehearing op the ground that all the facts were not disclosed by the record. He stated in his petition that he was not given proper notice of the appeal, and therefore was given permission to file a supplementary transcript of record so as to bring up any evidence that had been omitted from the original record; and a rehearing was granted in order to determine whether there was any new evidence which would affect or change our opinion upon the facts.

There is nothing in the supplementary record that was not stated in substance in the original record. The argument on the rehearing was not based upon any mistake of fact, hut was to the effect that we were wrong in our conclusion of law that the claims asserted were not within the admiralty jurisdiction. But we still think that the question of law was correctly decided, for the reasons stated in our original opinion. It may be that Jahneke has an equitable claim by subrogation as a result of his having paid for appellant’s benefit what may under the state law constitute nonmaritime liens, St. Joseph Land Co. v. MacLean (C. C. A.) 32 F.(2d) 984, 988; but whether he has or not cannot be determined in this proceeding.

The decree is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 F.2d 439, 1930 U.S. App. LEXIS 4305, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hayford-v-doussony-ca5-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack