Sweeting v. The Oxford

66 F. 584
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Florida
DecidedMarch 15, 1894
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 66 F. 584 (Sweeting v. The Oxford) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sweeting v. The Oxford, 66 F. 584 (S.D. Fla. 1894).

Opinion

LOCKE, District Judge.

This vessel, a large steamship, laden with about 4,000 tons of sugar, bound from Cardenas to Philadelphia, went ashore early in the morning of 11th of February, 1894, upon a. projecting point of Florida Reef known as “Coneh Reef,” about 100 miles northeast of the port of Key West. The place was a dangerous one, and one upon which several vessels have been wrecked, and was exposed to the full force of the sea from the northeast and around to south. A portion of the libelants herein, seeing the vessel aground, went to her assistance, and tendered their services, at about half-past 8 o’clock a. m. At first the master thought he might be able to float his vessel without aid, but finally, later in the day, agreed to accept the services of the several vessels and their crews which had arrived, and at about 12 o’clock permitted them to carry out a heavy anchor and hawser in the direction which he himself designated as the one which he considered the most proper, which was off the starboard quarter, trending well astern. The vessel, at the time of going ashore, had gone with such force and speed as to drive herself several feet out of the water, so .that, at the time of the libelants’ sounding around her, she was found to be in some four feet less water than when floating, with an uneven bottom. The anchor, weighing some three tons, with a [585]*585large bawser and fifteen fathoms of heavy chain, was carried out in the direction selected by the master, and let go. The libelants then suggested to the master that some of the cargo be transshipped to their vessels, in order that, when the tide arose, they might be able to float the steamship, but he declined to have any of the cargo taken out at that time. Later in the afternoon, when nearly dark, the master suggested that another haw'ser be run out, and furnished libelants a steel cable. By this time the wind had increased, together with the force and violence of the sea, so that it was with great difficulty that the cable was taken out. The instructions of the master and the efforts of the libelants were to make the steel cable fast to the heavy chain attached to the anchor which had already been dropped in seven fathoms of water, and a large iron shackle was furnished them for that purpose; but by rhat time the wind and sea had so increased that it was impossible, as alleged by the libelants, to bring the chain to the top of the water, so as to attach the shackle and the steel cable to it, and the cable was therefore made fast to the bight of the hawser, and the libelants returned on board the steamship. In the meantime another hawser had been carried off from the starboard bow of the steamship trending towards the stern, and the master had permitted libelants to commence discharging cargo into their vessels. As the tide arose, heavy strains were hove upon the steel cable and both hawsers by the steam power of the capstan and the winches of the vessel and the men on hoard the steamship, when both hawsers and cable parted, and the vessel remained upon, the bottom.

It is alleged by the respondents that, before the parting of said hawser and cable, the vessel had started several feet from the bottom; hut upon this point there is much conflicting evidence. After the parting of the hawsers, the wind and sea were so rough that it was impossible to do anything further that night about an anchor, but: they continued discharging cargo. Early in the morning a steamer that had arrived (the O. C. Williams) went out and picked up the chain attached to the anchor, and made the steel hawser fast to it. The vessel being at that time so hard aground, it was conceded by all parties that it would he impossible to move her without lightening her of more of her cargo. The libelants continued loading sugar into their vessels, and bringing same to Key West. The weather increased in severity to such extent that at one time all of the sailing vessels were compelled to leave the vicinity of the steamship, and go into harbor for safety, there being but one steamer (the O. C. Williams) that was able to remain in the vicinity of the steamship during the entire service. The salvors were increased in numbers by vessels coming to their aid, until in all there were between 60 and 70 sailing vessels of different sizes and 4 steamers and -about 500 men engaged in the service. In the meantime the steamship had sprung a leak, and finally filled with water, so that at one time the sea was washing over her upper deck. In addition to the steam vessels which had come to her aid, there were several steam pumps brought and used to free her from water. It is unnecessary to 3-eview in detail each day’s work. Most of the time the pumps [586]*586were running day and nigbt, and several nights the salvors were discharging cargo. The labor of discharging the cargo, pumping the vessel clear of water, and towing her to port occupied 18 days. Finally, the vessel being pumped nearly free from water, and much of the cargo having been taken out, and a large portion of that which was not taken out having been dissolved by the water and pumped out, she was finally relieved from the bottom, and brought to Key West.-

It is claimed by the respondents that the salvors were lacking in energy in their work; that it was through their fault that the steel cable was not made fast to the chain, but to the hawser, which caused it to part on the first night, and had it not been for this the steamship would have been floated. v

Salvors are expected to do everything within their power to relieve property the custodian of which has accepted their aid; but it cannot be expected that they will accomplish impossibilities or work miracles in attempting to render salvage services, and all that can be demanded is honest exertion and diligence. The question which arises in this, case is, was it within the power of the salvors, on the first night of the disaster, to have attached the steel cable to the chain, instead of attaching it to the hawser, as they did? The facts and circumstances attending the case have' been fully testified to, and all that can be determined is that there appears to be a large preponderance of evidence to show that the salvors did everything which could reasonably be expected of them in endeavoring to perform that part of their duty. The anchor had been dropped in seven fathoms of water. The chain to which it was desired to make fast the steel cable weighed upward of 240 pounds to the fathom, making a total of upward of 1,600 pounds which it would be necessary to raise to the bow of the vessel before the shackle and cable could be made fast. The evidence shows that at this time it was dark, and that the sea was very high, and the wind and waves so severe, with a strong current running, that the vessel that was detailed for this duty was plunging and pitching into the sea so that it was impossible to stand upon her deck, and that the men were compelled to dive overboard under the water, in order to make the cable fast to the hawser as it was. Captain Baker, whose services upon this reef have been well known for years, and in whom I have every confidence as an able, energetic, .and active salvor, was detailed to do this duty; and he testifies, positively and clearly, that it was impossible, under the circumstances, to attach the steel cable to the chain, as was desired.

• Whether the vessel moved at all that night I consider very uncertain, as there appears no reason for her stopping with so much force as to break the several hawsers, if once she had started.

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

Related

The Thornley
98 F. 735 (Fifth Circuit, 1899)
Duff v. Merritt
86 F. 675 (Second Circuit, 1898)
Janes v. Sweeting
66 F. 590 (Fifth Circuit, 1895)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
66 F. 584, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sweeting-v-the-oxford-flsd-1894.