Sugar Products Co. v. St. Thomas Ship Brokers' Ass'n

280 F. 821, 1 V.I. 556, 1922 U.S. App. LEXIS 1873
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·Decided April 4, 1922·No. No. 2702·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

WOOLLEY, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal in another case in admiralty-against the Schooner Edgewood, prosecuted through courts of the Virgin Islands under Danish law. The origin of the case and the main features of its procedure are given in the opinion of thi3 court in Sugar Products Co. v. A. H. Lockhart, just decided, 279 Fed. 348. There are differences in the two cases as tried below, but the main difference in the appeals is with respect to the appellate jurisdiction of this court. While the former appeal was taken from action of the court which was not final, the instant appeal was taken from a judgment which is, without doubt, final. This appeal, therefore, stands clear of any question of jurisdiction.

[823] The Schooner Edgewood, bound from Barbados to New York with a cargo of 210,000 gallons of molasses, put into the port of St. Thomas in distress. The St. Thomas Ship Brokers’ Association, a company or firm of two members, gave her assistance. Failing reimbursement, the Association filed in the Sheriff Court of St. Thomas and St. John a praecipe .showing a claim for $16,904.79, local currency, for disbursements made; alleging that they had been necessary to preserve the schooner and protect her cargo; and praying for an attachment against the schooner “and her cargo.” Attachment followed.

These proceedings, as in the other 'case, were then transferred by exemplified copy to the District Court of St. Thomas and St. John. From this court there issued a summons to the captain of the schooner to appear on a named day “to hear demands for the confirmation” of the attachment previously issued and also “to hear judgment for the payment of the aforesaid claim held by the said St. Thomas Ship Brokers’ Association against the said Schooner Edgewood and her cargo and owners originating for disbursements made to the said vessel for the amount named. Following the summons, the plaintiffs filed an itemized statement of their claim and a plea requesting that the proceedings before the Sheriff' Court be confirmed. On the return of the summons, the District Court considered the plaintiffs’ evidence,.which, so far as the record discloses consisted merely of a bill of particulars showing disbursements, supported by the captain’s admission that the same were correct “as far as he saw.”

The process, when analyzed, appears to be in the nature of foreign attachment based on the absence from the country of the owners of the attached property, supplemented by a proceeding peculiar to Danish law providing for a summons to the person in possession of the property attached. It may be said just here in answer to a point made by the appellant, that, while the captain of the schooner admitted the indebtedness, we do not understand that the court based its decision on his admission as binding the owner of the cargo, but rather on the plaintiffs’ proofs of the indebtedness and the right which the Danish law gave them to proceed against property of an absent owner in the manner peculiar to foreign attachment.

[ 1 ] The District Court entered judgment for the plaintiffs, doing several things: First, it confirmed the writ of attachment; second, after reducing the amount of counsel fees, it awarded the plaintiffs Fres. 78,759.50; and, third, it found that unless the same were paid within three days after notice to the captain the plaintiffs were “entitled to execution against the said British Schooner Edgewood of Montreal, her appurtenances and freight and against her cargo, as far as necessary to satisfy” the same. This we regard to be a final judgment, entered in due course of local law, which — the action being quasi in rem — is quite “compatible with the changed sovereignty.” See Sugar Products Co. v. A. H. Lockhart, 279 Fed. 348.

[2] The plaintiffs then returned to the Sheriff Court where, presenting a copy of the judgment of the District Court, they requested execution against the schooner, “her hull and all standing and running gear and her cargo.” Execution then issued against the schooner, “her [824] bull and all standing and running gear and also in 110,000 gallons of her cargo.” It should be noted that the execution did not run against her “freight.” As payment was not' forthcoming, the plaintiffs then went into the Auction Court of St. Thomas anc St. John and proceeded to have the schooner and “part of her cargo” appraised and advertised for sale. At this juncture the Sugar Products Company, owner of the cargo, appeared and gave bond for the purpose of 'taking this appeal, with the. effect of releasing the cargo from the attachment. Without attacking the judgment in the District Court, as the plaintiffs claim it might have done under Danish law, Sugar Products Company took this appeal on the record made in the District Court, and now (this appeal being in admiralty) asks us, quite correctly, to try the case de novo. The Ariadne, 13 Wall. 475, 479, 20 L. Ed. 542; Reid v. American Express Co., 241 U. S. 544, 548, 36 Sup. Ct. 712, 60 L. Ed. 1156; Duche & Sons v. The John Twohy, 255 U. S. 77, 41 Sup. Ct. 251, 65 L. Ed. 511; Clen v. Jorgensen (C. C. A.) 265 Fed. 120.

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

Sugar Products Co. v. St. Thomas Ship Brokers' Ass'n, 280 F. 821, 1 V.I. 556, 1922 U.S. App. LEXIS 1873 (3d Cir. 1922).

280 F. 821 (Sugar Products Co. v. St. Thomas Ship Brokers' Ass'n) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Richardson v. Electoral Boards
1 V.I. 301 (Virgin Islands, 1936)
Perkins v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.
43 F.2d 334 (Third Circuit, 1930)