Janes v. Sweeting

66 F. 590, 13 C.C.A. 647, 1895 U.S. App. LEXIS 2667
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 29, 1895
DocketNo. 237
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 66 F. 590 (Janes v. Sweeting) 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
Janes v. Sweeting, 66 F. 590, 13 C.C.A. 647, 1895 U.S. App. LEXIS 2667 (5th Cir. 1895).

Opinion

PABDEE, Circuit Judge.

In the early part of February, 1894, the steamship Oxford, a large steel steamer, built in England in 1887, with a cargo of about 27,500 bags of sugar, sailed from Matanzas, Cuba, for Philadelphia. In the early morning of February 11, 1894, she went ashore on a portion of the Florida Beefs, variously known as “Pickles’ Beef,” “Molasses Beef,” and “Conch Beef.” This reef is about 1.00 miles northeast from Key West, and is well known as dangerous, being exposed to the full force of the sea from the northeast and around to the south. The vessel went on the reef with such force as to drive her several feet out of water, and leave her hard and fast aground. Early in the morning of the 11th, the sailing schooner Magnolia, a vessel of 43 tons and a crew of 11 men, [591]*591proceeded to the relief of the Oxford. The next morning, the schooner Annie Lord, a vessel of 273 tons and a crew of 7 men and a pilot, lying at anchor off Key Largo, saw the Oxford, and went to her assistance. On that and the following- days, a fleet of small vessels of all classes, over 60 in number, also went to the assistance of the Oxford, among which, were the steam tug Clyde and the steam tug Triton, and the rest sailing vessels ranging from medium to small, and averaging about 25 tons, some so small as to have no registered tonnage. . The services of these vessels being accepted, two consortships were formed, and assistance was given by them to the stranded vessel. The wrecking steamer Eight Arm, built expressly for wrecking purposes, furnished with wrecking pumps and other machinery, and sent out by the underwriters from the North, arrived later on the scene,1“but was not permitted to render assistance until after the Oxford was floated. The services rendered by these vessels are sufficiently described in the opinion of the learned judge of the district court, on file in the record; and, as they were admitted salvage services, they need not be recapitulated. It is also admitted that they were successful salvage services, in so far as to bring to safety, in Key West Harbor, between two-flfths and one-half of the cargo of sugar and the steamship Oxford, all in a more or less damaged condition; the sugar reaching that port from time to time between the 16th and the 27th of February,.and the ship on the 27th of February.

Proceedings were commenced on the 19th of February by the libelants Sweeting and others of his consortship against such portion of the cargo as had already reached Key West. On the 27th of February, the master of the Annie Lord, with others of his consortship, ñled a libel against the Oxford and her cargo. On the 2d day of March, the libelants Sweeting and others filed an amended libel against the cargo of the Oxford, and against the Oxford herself. On the 13th of March, the master of the Eight Arm filed a petition of intervention for services rendered to the steamship Oxford from the time she was floated and until her arrival at Key West. The master of the Oxford answered the several libels and interventions, and the case came on for trial, and was tried on the 14th, 15th, and 16th days of March. The court appointed appraisers for the Oxford, and also for the cargo. These appraisers reported as follows:

“Upon an examination of the Br. S. S. Oxford, for the purpose of appraisement, we find the ship in a condition of considerable damage. In No. 2 hatch there are 25 or 30 frames broken on the starboard side, and the ballast tanks and bulkheads are somewhat started. In No. 3 hold there are five frames broken on the port side, and the ballast tanks also started. The rudder post is broken, and the rudder, the latter Ijaving been removed. The engineers on board examined carefully the engines, boilers, and dependencies of the ship, and fonnd them in bad condition. The boilers have shifted in board on the port and starboard sides.- The main and auxiliary steam pipes are somewhat broken. The main shaft requires lifting and lining, and the whole machinery should be taken ai)art and overhauled. The probable cost of this portion of the work of repairs would amount to $15,000. Under all the circumstances, and considering the cost of repairing and restrengthening the ship generally, together with a fair and moderate estimate of her value when so repaired, we judge the Oxford to be worth in her present condition $95,000.
[592]*592“We, the undersigned, having been appointed a board of appraisement to appraise and determine the value of the sugar of the cargo of the Br. S. S. Oxford, recently ashore upon the Florida Beef, would report .that we proceeded on the 28th day of February, 1894, to examine the same, and found: * * * Total, 860,896.12.”

On the 19th of March, the plaintiff made a motion to set aside the appraisal of the steamer, on the ground that the same was too high, as shown by documents attached, as follows:

“New York, March 8th, 1894.
“The undersigned, Thomas Oongdon, surveyor to Lloyds1' Kegister, and Frank S. Martin, engineer surveyor, having been requested by Messrs. Johnson & Hidgins,- average adjusters, to estimate the cost of repairing the damages to the steamship Oxford, of Bristol, as per report made by submarine diver, estimate the cost of repairs and making the same at about $35,000 (thirty-five thousand dollars). * • Thomas Oongdon.
“Frank S. Martin.”
“New York, 8th March, 1894.
“The undersigned, Thomas Oongdon, surveyor to Lloyds’ Kegister, and Frank S. Martin, engineer surveyor, having been requested by Messrs. Johnson & Hidgins, average adjusters, to estimate the sound value of the steamship Oxford, of Bristol, 1892, tons net, built in, April, 1887, find it amounts to the sum of eighty thousand dollars ($80,000). Thomas Oongdon.
“Frank S. Martin-”

On Maxcb. 24th. the court entered a final decree, refusing the motion for a reappraisal of the Oxford, and awarding salvage to the several libelants and the intervener Eight Arm in the sum of ,$37,114.60, of which sum $15,989.60 was decreed to be paid by the cargo, and $21,125 was decreed to be paid by the Oxford. In addition to these awards, there was a- decree for costs against the Oxford for $10,-735.42, and against the cargo for $7,446.86. 66 Fed. 584. In regard to the amounts awarded, in connection with the value of the salved property, the judge says:

“There has been no objection to the value of the cargo, and I do not deem it necessary to determine positively the actual value of the vessel in determining the amount of compensation. The amount which I deem reasonable as compensation would not be an unreasonable or an unusual rate per cent, even if she might prove to be of less value than the appraisers have reported. But if she is of as great value, the percentage of proportion of her value given as a salvage' compensation will be low, when her condition and the services rendered are considered.”

The amounts allowed appear to be about 26 per cent, of the value of the cargo saved, and 25 per cent, of the value of the steamer, taking such value ,at $84,500.' The salvage and costs decreed against the Oxford amount to about 37-),- per cent, of $84,500. The owners of the cargo paid the award and costs decreed against them.

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

Related

Conolly v. S.S. Karina II
302 F. Supp. 675 (E.D. New York, 1969)
Frontera Fruit Co. v. Dowling
91 F.2d 293 (Fifth Circuit, 1937)
Duff v. Merritt
86 F. 675 (Second Circuit, 1898)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
66 F. 590, 13 C.C.A. 647, 1895 U.S. App. LEXIS 2667, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/janes-v-sweeting-ca5-1895.