The Beaver

219 F. 134, 135 C.C.A. 32, 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 1621
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided January 4, 1915·No. No. 2365·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

ROSS, Circuit Judge.

The record in this case is very voluminous and has been very carefully examined, as have also been the elaborate and able briefs of the respective parties. The case grew out of a collision between the steamships Selja and Beaver near Point Reyes [135] on the coast of California. The collision resulted in the sinking of the Selja and the bringing of three suits against the Beaver — the main one by the master of the Selja on behalf Of her owner, officers, and crew, to recover for the loss of the ship and her equipment and for the loss of the personal effects of her officers and crew; the second, an intervening libel o-n behalf of the owners of the Selja’s cargo; and, the third, an independent suit by the charterers of the Selja against the owners of the Beaver to recover for loss of freight. The three cases were consolidated and tried together, resulting in both vessels being held in fault by the trial court and in an interlocutory decree providing, among other things, that the damages sustained by them be apportioned under the usual rule of cross-liabilities, subject to certain specified offsets; that the master of the Selja have and recover from the Beaver on behalf of the officers and crew of the Selja, excluding himself, the full damages suffered by them, without offset of any kind, and also have and recover from the Beaver on behalf of the owners and underwriters of the cargo of the Selja the full damages sustained by its cargo,’ without offset of any kind, and reserving for final adjudication other questions of damages until after proofs should be taken before a commissioner, to whom the cases were referred for the purpose of taking such proofs, ascertaining and computing the damages in accordance with the interlocutory decree, and with directions that he report to the court such damages, together, with all of the evidence produced before him.

Subsequent to the making of the order of reference, the respective parties entered into such stipulations and agreements as enabled the trial court to fix the various items of damage as a matter of law, which it did in and by the following finding:

1. Cargo owners............................................... $260,344 41

2. Officers and crew of Selja:

Allred Halvorsen, 1st officer............................... 643 50

Alfred Larson, 2d officer................................... 372 00

Arvid Bjorn, 3d officer.............. 249 90

Kambek Eggon, Chief engineer........................... 458 28

Axel Andersen, 2d engineer.......................... 349 30

Pedar Hansen, 3d engineer................................ 292 50

Wong Hal, steward....................................... 791 10

Choi Hoy, carpenter....... 284 75

8. Damages of Olaf Lie, master of the Selja.................... 1,973 23

4. Damages of William Jebsen, owner of the Selja:

Value of the Selja exclusive of the items hereinafter mentioned ......... 171,000 00

Spare gear of the Selja............ 3,056 00

Engine-room stores of Selja......... 951 51

Deck-room stores of Selja................. 950 63

Provisions for Chinese crew of Selja----.................... 261 45

Cost of keeping Chinese crew in San Francisco, pending their return to China............. 160 63

Cost of returning Chinese crew to China............. 1,771 20

Cost of marl tinte declaration made by the master of the Selja 43 00

5. Damages to the Beaver............. 81,829 18

(i .Damages of the Portland & Asiatic Steamship Company, charterer of the Selja:

For loss of pending freight................. 10,742 21

Bunker coal, flour slings, etc................... 3,209 04

[136] It was admitted that the several amounts above specified should bear interest at 6 per cent, per annum from the date of the collision to the entry of the final decree, and that the cargo owners and the officers and crew of the Selja, other than her master, were entitled to judgment against the Beaver for their full damages without offset, and that the damages of the owner and master of the Selja and of the Beaver be apportioned, “and that, if any balance be found due from the steamship Beaver to said libelant, Olaf Lie, individually and also on behalf of the pwners of said steamship Selja, there be deducted therefrom one-half of all damages awarded under clauses 2, 3, 4, and 5 of this (interlocutory) decree, and that, if no balance be then due, no damages be recovered by said libelant for himself individually or for the owners of said steamship Selja, but that, if any balance be found due, said libelant have and recover said balance from said steamship Beaver for himself and the owners of said Selja in proportion to tire respective amounts of their claims.”

As half of the cargo damages were more than the half damages awarded to the' Selja, the result was that the master and owner of that ship recovered nothing; and to that effect, in part, was the final decree. The appeal is from that portion of that decree, and from the further provision thereof that the costs be divided.

It is conceded by the appellant that, if the trial court was right in holding both vessels in fault, the decree appealed from is correct. It is, however, strenuously contended on its behalf: First, that the Selja was not in fault; and, secondly, that if so her fault did not contribute to the collision, and hence that the libelant should have been awarded the full amount of damages suffered, with interest and costs.

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

The Beaver, 219 F. 134, 135 C.C.A. 32, 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 1621 (9th Cir. 1915).

219 F. 134 (The Beaver) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Davis v. Esso Delivery No. 13
100 F. Supp. 285 (D. Maryland, 1951)
The Silver Palm
94 F.2d 754 (Ninth Circuit, 1937)
Silver Line v. United States
94 F.2d 754 (Ninth Circuit, 1937)
Sea Products Co. v. Puget Sound Navigation Co.
71 P.2d 43 (Washington Supreme Court, 1937)
Edwards v. Wilmington Transp. Co.
18 F. Supp. 461 (S.D. California, 1937)
The Charles R. McCormick
15 F.2d 386 (D. Oregon, 1926)
The Munrio
11 F.2d 900 (N.D. California, 1926)
Potter v. Hartford & N. Y. Transp. Co.
282 F. 658 (D. Rhode Island, 1922)
The Thielbek
241 F. 209 (Ninth Circuit, 1917)
The Beaver
219 F. 139 (Ninth Circuit, 1915)