The Bremen

111 F. 228, 1901 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedSeptember 3, 1901
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 111 F. 228 (The Bremen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
The Bremen, 111 F. 228, 1901 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75 (S.D.N.Y. 1901).

Opinion

BROWN, District Judge.

In the above matters 34 libels in behalf of thé owners of 35 different tugs were filed against the steamship Bremen, and 11 libels in behalf of as many tugs against the steamship Main, for the recovery of salvage compensation for services rendered to those vessels in towing them to places of safety, and in extinguishing the fire on board, which broke out at about 4 p. m. of Saturday, June 30, 1900' at the time of the great fire at the North German Lloyd piers, at Hoboken, N. J.

The general circumstances of the fire are stated in the case of The Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse (D. C.) 106 Fed. 963.

[229]*229Of the ii tugs making claims ágainst the Main, 7 tugs claim also for services rendered to the Bremen at the same fire. The different suits against each vessel were consolidated; and as the salvage operations in behalf of the Main affected the fire on the Bremen and the claims against each, the two cases will be here considered together.

In the case of The Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse, the most important part of the salvage service was very short, consisting solely of towage for about 10 or 15 minutes only in expediting her retreat from the southerly side of pier No. 1, a few minutes after the outbreak of the fire, whereby she escaped any substantial damage. In the present cases, both steamers were a mass of flame before any help could be rendered; each sustained large loss, and the services of the tugs were in towing away and beaching the vessels on the Weehawken flats where they could be more easily raised and repaired, and in the long-continued pumping with their fire apparatus in extinguishing the fire on board, thus saving considerable, additional loss. In each there was also the additional element of the saving of human lives.

1. The Main, a new steamer 500 feet long by 60 feet beam, and of about 10,000 tons capacity, was on the northerly side of pier 1, and when the outbreak of the fire was perceived, a few minutes past 4 p. m., her lines were cast off from the pier, the ports closed and efforts made to warp her across the slip to the Thingvalla pier next above. This however could not be effected. Her movements were obstructed by other craft alongside and astern of her, and before she could be moved at all, her officers and men were compelled to fly from the fire that was communicated to the Main from the adjacent pier and bulkhead. Most of her officers and men escaped by jumping into the water or upon lighters alongside, from which they made their way. Many were picked up from the water by different tugs. Seventeen of the crew, however, not getting timely warning of the danger, were imprisoned below the decks in the Main by the fire above, and were taken out from one of the coal ports by' Superintendent Moeller, with the aid of the tug Stevens (not one of the libelants) at about up. m., soon after the Main was beached at Weehawken.

No efforts were made to rescue the Main until about 9:30' p. m., when the tug Cahill first went under her stern, made a line fast to her rudder and with the further help of the tugs Tee, Kemphill, Moran and Booth, pulled her out of the slip and towed her in the flood tide to the flats at Weehawken, where she was beached at about up. m., as above stated. For about seven hours, from 4 p. m. to 11, the fire had been raging in the Main substantially unchecked, and when beached her upper side plating was red hot. From 11 p. m. of Saturday to the following Monday morning, the above five tugs and six others, viz. the Mattie, Tyndhurst, Merritt, Dailey, Florence and Timmins, poured water upon and into her from their fire pumps, some for a few hours only, and some for the whole period. The fire boat New Yorker also played four stands of hose upon her from midnight until 3 a. m. of Sunday, when no flames [230]*230on her were visible, and the New Yorker then turned her streams upon the Bremen.

During Saturday night the Main grounded her whole length, took a list to starboard (towards the New York shore) and her lower ports becoming submerged she filled with water to her main deck. By Sunday morning the fire was mostly extinguished, but smoldering below in some of the hatches and occasionally breaking out a little; by Sunday afternoon the fire was practically out, but the ship still needed a little watching and cooling and some occasional playing in the hatches, and on Monday morning the Chapman & Merritt Derrick & Wrecking Company, under a contract with the owners of the Main and the Bremen, took charge of all further salvage operations.

All the woodwork of the Main was consumed; the interior ironwork, including the iron decks and frames, was to a considerable extent so twisted and warped by the intense heat as to be useless, and much of her side plating was also bent and useless.

The superintendent, Mr. Moeller, testifies that on the Main

“* * * Every plate was bent, nearly from tbe keel up to tbe superstructure.
“Q. That wasn’t so with tbe Saale? A. No.
“Q. So that tbe Main received more injury on account of being in tbe fire longer? A. Yes, the fire was longer in her.”

The engines and boilers were also damaged by the heat, though there was no fire in the engine compartments, as they contained nothing combustible. The agreed value of the Main before the fire was about $850,000; her value after the fire, as she lay beached, was for the purposes of this hearing agreed to be taken at $225,000; and her damaged cargo at $14,096.45. After being raised she was taken to the Erie Dry Dock for temporary repair, and thence to Norfolk for permanent repairs.

Notwithstanding the very large loss sustained by the Main, amounting to about three-fourths of her value before the fire, I think the service rendered by the tugs and the fire boat was of considerable substantial benefit to her, both in enabling her to be raised at less expense, and in arresting her practical destruction as a vessel. I see no reason why she should have fared much better than the Saale, in the end, had she not received any aid; and the Saale was nearly a wreck. No doubt the aid rendered to the Main came so late that about everything on her that was combustible, except her cargo, was consumed; but the practical extinction of the fire by Sunday afternoon, except some smoldering, and occasional slight outbreaks in some of the hatches, and the more rapid cooling of the vessel by the water poured into her and upon her, diminished considerably I think the extent of the damage that Would otherwise have resulted, particularly in the engine compartments, so that sufficient was saved to leave her still worth repairing.

I doubt, however, whether the actual saving through the work of the tugs and fire boat together exceeded $125,000; and of this I think one-fourth at least is due to the latter. A saving of $90,000 to the Main’s hull and cargo through the work of all the libelants would, I think, be a liberal estimate. Before considering what [231]*231awards, if any, should be made for these services, her relations to the Bremen must be considered.

2. The Bremen was somewhat larger than the Main, being 525 feet long by 60 beam, and 3 years old. Her value before the fire was about $910,000; and after the fire,' as she lay beached at Weehawken, her value is agreed, for the purpose of this trial, to have been $625,000, and her cargo worth $4,737.35. The damage to the Bremen by the fire was therefore about $285,000.

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

Related

Higgins, Inc. v. the Tri-State
99 F. Supp. 694 (S.D. Florida, 1951)
Rodriguez v. Bagalini
17 F.2d 921 (Ninth Circuit, 1927)
The George W. Elzey
250 F. 602 (Second Circuit, 1918)
Dorrington v. City of Detroit
223 F. 232 (Sixth Circuit, 1915)
The Bangor
212 F. 706 (Second Circuit, 1914)
The Sif
181 F. 412 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania, 1910)
The S. C. Schenk
158 F. 54 (Sixth Circuit, 1907)
The Mesaba
111 F. 215 (S.D. New York, 1901)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
111 F. 228, 1901 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-bremen-nysd-1901.