Murray v. United States

55 F. 829, 5 C.C.A. 283, 1893 U.S. App. LEXIS 2020
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit
DecidedMay 17, 1893
DocketNo. 8
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 55 F. 829 (Murray v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Murray v. United States, 55 F. 829, 5 C.C.A. 283, 1893 U.S. App. LEXIS 2020 (3d Cir. 1893).

Opinion

WALES, District Judge.

This is an appeal from a decree of the United States circuit court for the eastern district of Pennsylvania, refusing the libelant’s claim for salvage, and allowing inadequate compensation for towage services. Eight assignments of error have been filed, but all of them may be included in the second and third, which are as follows:

“(2) In holding that the services rendered by the Viola to the light-ship were extraordinary towage services, and in not holding that said services were salvage services, and so compensating them. (3) In not awarding adequate compensation for said services, and in. not awarding interest upon tho sum allowed from the date of said services.”

The history of the case is this: At 5 o’clock on Sunday morning, April 7, 1889, during the height of a northeast storm, the winter quarter light-ship, Uo. 45, broke loose from her moorings, off the coast of Delaware, about 28 miles from OMncoteague, and was driven before the gale 130 miles southward from her station. [830]*830She was a new vessel, schooner-rigged, well-provisioned, and fully equipped with sails, boats, and anchors, and was in charge of an assistant keeper, an assistant engineer, and a crew of six men, including the cook. The first keeper and the chief engineer were ashore on leave. Immediately on breaking loose, the chains were hauled in, the jib and foresail were put up, the vessel was hove to, and a color set, showing that she was adrift. It was not long before the steamer Eichmond, of the Old Dominion Line, passed No. 45 within short hailing distance, but no signal of distress or for assistance was made by the latter, and the Eichmond saluted and went on. The expectation was that the Eichmond would, on reaching port, report the position of No. 45. On Monday night, the 8th, between 8 and 9 o’clock, the steamer Chattahoochee, of the Ocean Steamship Company of Savannah, came in sight, and, in answer to a flashlight on board of No. 45, circled round the latter, to ascertain what was wanted, and, on finding that a tow was required, Capt. Daggett replied that he had not sufficient coal for the purpose, but would lay by until daylight to take off the officers and crew, if necessary. The officer in charge of No. 45 replied: “No, I don’t want to be taken off. Go on.” At 6:30 A. M. on Tuesday, the 9th, the large freight steamer Viola, sugar laden, bound from Matanzas to New York, came up, and, in response to a signal from No. 45, “Will you take me in tow?” the steamship signaled, 'Wait till the weather moderates.” Later in the day the Viola made an offer of provisions, which was declined. In the mean time the Viola kept No. 45 in sight, and at 5 o’clock A. M. on Wednesday, the 10th, the sea having fallen considerably, the Viola got out a boat, passed a small line to No. 45, and by that means hauled a seven-inch hawser on board. The Viola next sent her hawser and made fast to No. 45, and at 8 A. M. “let away with full speed, towing with two hawsers.” At 6 A. M. on Thursday, the 11th, No. 45 was brought into Cape Henry, and left in charge of a tug, the Viola proceeding on her voyage to New York. The log of the Viola contains this entry for Wednesday: “Noon. Latitude 36 deg. north; longitude 74 deg. 27 min. west; distance twenty-eight; steering northwest by west; speed about seven knots; weather fine. 4 P. M. Light northwest wind and fine clear weather.” This was the day on which the towing began. The storm which drove No. 45 from its station had set in on Saturday night previous, and continued with great violence during the two following days. On Tuesday it had spent its force, the wind backing to the north-northwest, and the sea having fallen. During this time No. 45 rode out the gale without loss or damage, save such as were repaired at the small cost of $41.50. Neither did the Viola suffer any injury, save a chafed hawser, which was afterwards condemned, and possibly a leak in the lazaretto, near the rudder post, which was not at all serious, and was not repaired until after she had returned to the West Indies; and no witness was able to tell whether the leak was developed before [831]*831or after the Viola fell in with Ho. 45. The chief engineer of the steamship could perceive no strain on her engines after ike towing began; and as to tbe alleged risk to the lives of the men who passed in the small boat between the two vessels in carrying out the lines attached to the hawsers the evidence conclusively ahows that It was nothing more than the usual risk which always attend» such work in mid-ocean, and is not accounted dangerous by experienced and active sailors.

The claim for salvage was urged on the ground that Ho. 45 was in charge of incompetent officers, with an inexperienced crew on board, was unmanageable, and at the mercy of the winds and waves. It is true that the vessel had no skilled navigator, but her officers and men were practical seamen, and there is ample testimony to prove that she was ably handled throughout the prevalence of the storm; and the indisputable fact that no signal of distress was made, and the refusal of the officers to aeeepi an offer of rescue from the Chattahoochee, confirm the belief that those in chax'ge of her did not consider themselves or the vessel to be in imminent peril. The entry in the log of the Viola for Tuesday, the 0tli, is: “This day begins, with strong north-nortirwest gale and clear weather; sea moderating; steering north by east; speed about two knots an hour. At 4 A. M. wind and sea moderating. 6:3b A. M. Sighted winter quarter light-vessel under small sail, hove to.”

The main sail of Ho. 45 was not bent, and it was attempted to be shown that she could not be hove to without it, but this is disproved by the extract fx-oixi the Viola’s log, and by the statement of Capt. Daggett, of the Chattahoochee, who says that the light-ship was ably handled, reversing his courses while the captain was steaming round him, hauling his head up to the sea, and laying in a very comfortable and easy position. By that time (Monday night) the height oí the gale, according to Capt Daggett, had passed, and was moderating very fast, but there was still a very heavy sea. Mouat, chief officer of the Viola, admitted that if he had been on Ho. 45, with plenty of food and water, he would have considered himself safe, but would have kept along the land, so that some one might pick him up. He qualifies this admission, however, by saying that if he was not a practical seaman, and no practical seaman was on board, he would think his time had come. Kelson, the second officer of the Viola, also admits the possibility of Ho. 45 pulling- through the gale, provisioned and manned as she was, and he could not say that she was not carefully managed. Capt. Murray thinks that Ho. 45 could have sailed with a fair wind, and that on the night before the towing began there was nothing dangerous in her position. Commander Bead, of the United States navy, who was the inspector of the fourth lighthouse district in 1889, and investigated the facts connected with the accident to Ho. 45, immediately after its occurrence, found that everything had been done to his satisfaction by the officers and crew as far as handling [832]*832üie ship was concerned. It was the object of her officers to head the vessel to the eastward, and keep her away from the land. It was also his opinion that they could have sailed up to or near their position, off Chincoteague, if they had not been taken in tow. He further testified to .his belief in the competency of her officers and men.

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

Related

Faneuil Advisors v. O
First Circuit, 1995
Faneuil Advisors, Inc. v. O/S Sea Hawk
50 F.3d 88 (First Circuit, 1995)
Texas Co. v. Texas & Gulf S. S. Co.
263 F. 868 (Fifth Circuit, 1920)
The Joseph F. Clinton
250 F. 977 (Second Circuit, 1918)
The D. L. Co. No. XX
205 F. 188 (W.D. Washington, 1913)
The Brina P. Pendleton
200 F. 848 (E.D. North Carolina, 1912)
The Robert S. Besnard
144 F. 992 (D. South Carolina, 1906)
United States v. Morgan
99 F. 570 (Fourth Circuit, 1900)
McGraw Transportation Co. v. The Spokane
67 F. 254 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1895)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
55 F. 829, 5 C.C.A. 283, 1893 U.S. App. LEXIS 2020, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murray-v-united-states-ca3-1893.