The Apache

124 F. 905, 1903 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. South Carolina
DecidedJuly 15, 1903
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 124 F. 905 (The Apache) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
The Apache, 124 F. 905, 1903 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187 (southcarolinaed 1903).

Opinion

BRAWLEY, District Judge.

These libels for salvage were, by order of the court, consolidated for the purpose of taking testimony and entry of final decree, but the interests of the libelants remain distinct, and have been separately presented to this court. They are for services rendered to the Apache, a large and valuable steamship [906]*906belonging to the Clyde Steamship Company, and plying regularly between the ports of New York, Charleston, and Jacksonville. On the morning of October 9, 1902, on her way from Jacksonville to Charleston, with about 20 passengers and two-thirds of a cargo, she was struck by the steamship Iroquois, of the same line, on her port side, about 30 feet abaft her stem, and a hole about 20 feet wide on her main deck and about 10 or 12 feet wide at the water line was driven into her, and her No. 1 hold was almost immediately filled with water. The collision occurred at half-past 2 o’clock a. m., at about high water, in the main channel, about two miles from the entrance of the jetties. Her master, not then knowing the extent of his injuries, immediately thereafter ran her on the flats or sand bar to the north of the main channel, where she lay during the period covered by the services for which compensation is now sought. The Apache is an iron steamship, about three years old, about 350 feet in length, and testimony of libelant fixes her value at $350,000 and for the claimant at $200,000. It is agreed that her cargo, consisting of cross-ties, naval stores, and cotton, was of the value of fifty or sixty thousand dollars. Revel, managing owner of the Waban, was summoned by telephone between half past 3 and 4 o’clock on Thursday morning, October 9th, by Nickerson, the superintendent of wharves of the Clyde Company, to get the Waban ready, and render assistance. He immediately got up and went down to the tug, where he met Nickerson and Mansfield, the head stevedore of the Clyde Company, with some longshoremen, and they went down to the ship, arriving there between 5 and 6 o’clock. His testimony is that Nickerson, on the way down, said, “We will make'no agreement for this work; we will go down and render what assistance we can to the ship;” and that he replied, “All right.” Nickerson’s testimony is that he met Revel on the wharf, and told him that: “We would go. out to the Apache; that she was beached; and told him that we wanted to use the tug. I told him it was not a question of salvage, but simply by the hour or by the day, as we needed him;” and that Revel replied, “All right.” Igoe, the master of the Protector, heard of the disaster from Revel about half past 4 o’clock, and immediately went down on his tug to the ship, arriving about 6 o’clock, and asked Bearse, the master of the Apache, if he wanted any assistance, to which he replied that he wanted some lighters, but did not want the tug; that he would send the Waban for the lighters. The price for the lighters — $50 each per day — was agreed upon. Shortly after-wards Bearse informed him that he would take both the tugs, but nothing was said as to compensation for the use of the tug. The Waban was sent up to the city with passengers, and the Protector was sent to bring down the lighters. Shortly after the Waban returned to the ship, she commenced pumping in the fire room, and continued pumping until about 1 o’clock. A more detailed consideration of this service will be had hereafter. The Protector did no pumping on that day, and at 1 o’clock the pumping ceased, and, it being then about high water, an attempt was made to pull the ship off, both tugs pulling at the stern and the ship using her own power. This effort was unavailing. The tugs are described as first-class towboats. They [907]*907had no wrecking cables or kedges or other wrecking apparatus. The tugs remained in attendance upon the ship, carrying messages and officials to and from the city, and towing lighters whenever called upon, which lighters were loaded by the stevedores of the ship until Sunday night. By that time Pregnall, who had been employed for that purpose, had made a shutter or patch, designed to cover the hole in the ship, and after this patch was applied both tugs and the pumps of the ship commenced pumping out No. I hold, but, after pumping about an hour, it was discovered that the patch was not sufficiently tight, and it was taken off, and some additional mattresses, furnished by the ship, were battened on it, and on Monday morning it was again put in place, and the hole so far made tight that pumping was again resumed. A large pump furnished by Pregnall, the ship’s pumps, and the pumps on the tugs succeeded at about half past 12 o’clock in pumping out the water from hold No. i, when the ship floated, and the tug Rescue, of the Merritt Company, which had been summoned from Norfolk (a large and powerful wrecking tug, equipped especially for wrecking purposes), and had arrived on the scene the afternoon before, towed the Apache up to the city, where she was put upon the sand bar near the Battery until she could be repaired so as to resume her voyage to New York. In coming up to that point the two tugs were lashed alongside, using their pumps and backing, the ship being brought up stern foremost. The services of Pregnall and of the diver employed by him and of the tug Rescue are not involved in this case. The lighters have been paid for, and the sole question is as to the proper remuneration to be awarded to the libelants for services thus briefly related, and which will be considered later more in detail.

The first point to be determined is whether, as contended by the claimants, these services are to be considered in the light of mere harbor service, to be compensated upon a quantum meruit with a bonus, or whether they should be considered in the light of a salvage service, where the award should not rest upon the narrow ground of mere compensation pro opere et labore, but upon the larger policy of the maritime law, looking to merit and effort and peril in the duty of encouraging assistance in cases of distress. Any service or assistance applied for or received by a vessel in peril or distress which in any measure conduces to its safety is in the nature of salvage service, and is to be compensated upon principles more liberal than, ordinary work. This rule of the maritime law is not established for the benefit of individuals, but rests upon the sound principle that it is to the general advantage of all interested in property exposed to the perils of the sea that sufficient inducements should be held out to all who are in position to render aid to make extraordinary exertions to save such property from peril. To displace a claim for salvage, it is necessary that parties who seek the protection of any other rule of compensation should plead and prove a binding contract that the work done shall be paid for at all events. It is none the less a salvage service that the peril apprehended did not befall, or that the labor expended was insignificant, and performed without actual risk. These considerations affect the quantum of compensation, but not [908]*908the nature of the service, or the principles by which that compensation-is to be measured. I am of opinion that the claimants have failed to-prove a binding agreement which would displace the claim for salvage, and that compensation for the services rendered must be tested and measured by the rules and principles which usually govern in salvage cases.

The case is not one which presents much difficulty.

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

Related

Sobonis v. Steam Tanker National Defender
298 F. Supp. 631 (S.D. New York, 1969)
Lambros Seaplane Base, Inc. v. The Batory
117 F. Supp. 16 (S.D. New York, 1953)
The Jean L. Somerville
286 F. 35 (Fifth Circuit, 1922)
The Edilio
246 F. 470 (E.D. California, 1917)
The Coquitlam City
243 F. 767 (W.D. Washington, 1917)
The Alcazar
227 F. 633 (E.D. North Carolina, 1915)
The Brina P. Pendleton
200 F. 848 (E.D. North Carolina, 1912)
The Lowther Castle
195 F. 604 (D. New Jersey, 1912)
The Rebecca Shepherd
148 F. 727 (D. Maine, 1906)
The Robert S. Besnard
144 F. 992 (D. South Carolina, 1906)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
124 F. 905, 1903 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-apache-southcarolinaed-1903.