Manchester Liners, Ltd. v. United States

53 Ct. Cl. 449, 1918 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 105
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedMay 6, 1918
DocketNo. 32441
StatusPublished

This text of 53 Ct. Cl. 449 (Manchester Liners, Ltd. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Manchester Liners, Ltd. v. United States, 53 Ct. Cl. 449, 1918 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 105 (cc 1918).

Opinion

Hay, Judge,

reviewing the facts found to be established, delivered the opinion of the court:

The plaintiff which sues on behalf of itself and the officers and crew of the Manchester Engineer is the owner of the said ship, which is a steamship of 2,813 tons net register, 375 feet long, and is of steel and 40-foot beam construction, and at the time of the rendition of the salvage service hereafter mentioned was of the value of $240,000 and had aboard a cargo of the value of $575,000. She was commanded by Ernest W. Beggs, an experienced and competent navigator, and she had a competent crew consisting of 35 officers and men.

At the time of the rendition of the said salvage service the Winces, a torpedo boat, was owned and operated by the United States Government and, together with her supplies, was of the value of $60,000, and was manned by two officers and a crew of 30 men. On the 23d day of October, 1911, the Manchester Engineer was off the coast of North Carolina [453]*453proceeding on a voyage from Savannah to Manchester, England, via Norfolk, for bunker coal, when she sighted two torpedo boats belonging to the United States flying signals for assistance. One was the Macdonough, and she was towing the Wilkes. In the early morning of October 23, 1911, the Wilkes had become disabled by reason of the breaking down of her aft boilers, and both the port engine and the dynamo had become useless. She had been towed by the Macdonough from 7.35 a. m. to 5.30 p. m. on October 23, 1911, and at that time there was a fresh breeze blowing from the northeast, increasing to a gale. In the early morning of October 23 one of the Macdonough's towlines parted and at 5 p. m. the other towline of the Macdonough was about to part, and when the Macdonough sighted the Manchester Engineer at 5 p. m. she requested the Manchester Engineer to take the Wilkes in tow. The Wilkes also asked to be towed. The Wilkes was then in a bad condition; she was short of water, her port engine was out of commission, as was her dynamo, she had no electric lights, and water had begun to rise in her engine room. Upon the request of the Mac-donough and the Wilkes the Manchester Engineer proceeded to take the Wilkes in tow and from 6.30 to 8 p. m. October 23, 1911, the Wilkes and the Manchester Engineer were laboring to get a line attached. The first line broke, and at 9 p. m. another line was attached. At 10.05 p. m. this also broke. A moderate gale was blowing, and owing to the danger of the situation nothing was done until the next morning, the Wilkes having requested that the Manchester Engineer should stand by all night, which she did, as did the Macdonough, all three ships having drifted 24 miles during the night.

At 7.35 a. m. of October 24 a line was attached to the Wilkes, and the Manchester Engineer began towing her. The weather was very bad and continued so all day. The Macdonough steamed out of sight about 12.30 p. m. The towing continued all day, and was at all times against the sea, and in the faqe of the gale.

Measures were taken by the officers of the Manchester Engineer to have the towlines carefully watched, but at about [454]*45412.45 a. m. by the time aboard the Wilkes and at 1.45 by the time aboard the Manchester Engineer the towlines parted near the stem of the Wilkes. The engines of the Manchester Engineer were immediately slowed down. The steamer was then turned back on the opposite course and the lights of the Wilkes and those of another vessel, which was not very far from the Wilkes, were seen. The steamer followed these lights for 7 miles, until they disappeared inland toward Hatteras Cove. At the time the towlines parted the Wilkes was to the windward of Hatteras, and was in position to run before the wind to a safe anchorage, and was also near other naval vessels. When the towlines parted the steamer had towed the Wilkes about 72 miles against a northeast gale and heavy wind from an exposed position to one of comparative safety, to the windward side of Cape Hatteras, where the weather had moderated. After the lights of the Wilkes had disappeared the Manchester Engineer cruised around in search of the Wilkes until 6 o’clock in the morning, but as nothing could be seen of her the steamer steamed alongside the Diamond Shoal Lightship, and signaled that she had had the Wilkes in tow, and that she had broken adrift, and that the Manchester Engineer was proceeding to Norfolk. At Norfolk the master of the steamship made a verbal report to the United States navy yard of the salvage service, and later wrote a bi’ief statement of it, which he mailed to the commandant of the yard.

The Wilkes at the time the salvage service was rendered to her was in great danger, and great risk was incurred by the Manchester Engineer in rendering the service. The time employed in said service was a period of 40 hours, and the steamer was delayed in her journey 60 hours. By reason of the above facts the plaintiff on its own behalf, and in behalf of the officers and crew of the Manchester Engineer, brings this suit to recover salvage on account of services rendered by the Manchester Engineer to the torpedo boat Wilkes, owned and operated by the United States.

The defendants insist that the facts above recited do not show that the service rendered by the Manchester Engineer constitutes salvage service. We do not think the contention [455]*455of tbe Government can be maintained in the light of the facts and the law governing cases of this character.

There are three elements necessary to a salvage claim: (1) A marine peril to the property to be rescued; (2) service voluntarily rendered when not required as an existing duty or from a special contract; and (3) success in whole or in part, or that the service rendered contributed to such success. The Sabine, 101 U. S., 384.

There can be no question, under the facts in this case, that the WilJces was exposed to a marine peril at the time the services were rendered. She was on a stormy sea, disabled, with water rising in her engine room; and indeed, unless she had been in peril her commander certainly would not have asked assistance, nor would the Macdonough, her sister ship, have joined in that request and stood by all night and until it was seen that the Wilkes was safely in tow of the Manchester Engineer. To make out a salvage service it is not necessary to show that escape from danger by other means was impossible, provided the danger was real and imminent. It may be a case of more or less merit, according to the degree of peril in which the property was, and the danger and difficulty of relieving it. But these circumstances affect the degree of the service, not its nature.” The Connemara, 108 U. S., 352, 357. “Useful services of any kind rendered to a vessel or her cargo, exposed to any impending-danger and imminent peril of loss or damage, may entitle those who render such services to salvage reward.” The Blackwall, 10 Wall., 1, 11.

There was no contract between the parties in this case; the service was voluntarily rendered, and was not required as an existing duty from the Manchester Engineer to the Wilkes. The Manchester Engineer

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

Related

The Camanche
75 U.S. 448 (Supreme Court, 1869)
The Blackwall
77 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1870)
The" Sabine"
101 U.S. 384 (Supreme Court, 1880)
The Connemara
108 U.S. 352 (Supreme Court, 1883)
The Excelsior
123 U.S. 40 (Supreme Court, 1887)
Alaska Exploration Co. v. United States
44 Ct. Cl. 392 (Court of Claims, 1909)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
53 Ct. Cl. 449, 1918 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manchester-liners-ltd-v-united-states-cc-1918.