Woolsey v. Amiga Mia

90 F. Supp. 228, 1950 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3764
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Louisiana
DecidedApril 6, 1950
DocketNo. 1571
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 90 F. Supp. 228 (Woolsey v. Amiga Mia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Woolsey v. Amiga Mia, 90 F. Supp. 228, 1950 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3764 (E.D. La. 1950).

Opinion

CHRISTENBERRY, Chief Judge.

The oil yacht Amiga Mia arrived at the port of New Orleans on August 26, 1948, after a voyage which commenced at New York City on August 15, 1948. On December 2, 1948, Heathcote M. Woolsey filed his libel in rem against the Amiga Mia for foreclosure of a preferred mortgage on the vessel, Woolsey alleging that the owner of the vessel, Rose L. Martin, was indebted to him in the sum of Eighteen Thousand ($18,000.00) Dollars, as evidenced by a promissory note secured by such preferred mortgage, which note and mortgage he alleges were executed on July 22, 1948.

In due course the Amiga Mia was seized, and on motion of libellant this court ordered the interlocutory sale of the vessel, and the deposit in the registry of the Court of the proceeds of the sale. In compliance with the Court’s order, the vessel was sold by the United States Marshal, libellant bidding it in for the sum of Eighteen Thousand Dollars, which sum, less the Marshal’s expenses, in further compliance with the Court’s order, was duly deposited.

On December 21, 1948, Alphonse Amore and Lucille B. Tosti brought their intervening libel in rem against the vessel, alleging that prior to July 23, 1948, they furnished to the Amiga Mia, on the order of Rose L. Martin, necessary supplies in the amount of $2,004.21, and that, also, prior to July 23, 1948, they advanced to Rose L. Martin on the credit of the vessel, to pay wages then due the crew and to provide necessary fuel, provisions and supplies, sums aggregating $1,660.00. They also claim that during the latter part of July, 1948, they advanced for the same purposes sums aggregating $4,800.00, and that during August, 1948, for the purpose of paying for the services of pilots for the vessel, they advanced the further sum of $559.00.

Amore and Tosti allege further that on or about August 13, 1948, before the vessel left New York, the libellant Tosti advanced the additional sum of $1,700 in payment of provisions, supplies, and crew’s wages on the voyage. Amore and Tosti contend that the advances made by them subsequent to July 22, 1948, the date of the granting of the mortgage to Woolsey, were made without knowledge of the existence of such mortgage, and that if the said mortgage was granted for due consideration, — which they deny for want of information, — the mortgage is not entitled to rank as a maritime lien on the vessel, for failure to comply with certain requirements of the Ship Mortgage Act of 1920, 46 U.S.C.A. § 911 et seq. The claims of Amore and Tosti, jointly, aggregate the sum of $9,023.21, and the claim of libellant Tosti, individually, amounts to $1,700.

On December 28, 1948, Paul Walker filed his libel of intervention and interpleader against the Amiga Mia, and against Rose L. Martin, Robert Morss Lovett, Heathcote M. Woolsey, Lucille Tosti, and Alphonse Amore, individually, and jointly, severally, and in solido, as owners of the Amiga Mia. Walker’s libel sets out three causes of action. The first of these, and the only one which is presently before the court, is for wages alleged to be due him, in the sum of $11,115. Walker contends that on or about June 9, 1947, at Baltimore, Maryland, he was employed by the owners of the vessel, whom he alleges to have been Rose L. Martin and Robert Morss Lovett, as second mate and supervisor of conversion, at wages of $585 per month, plus found, to assist in the outfitting and preparation of the vessel for a cruise to South America, and for such voyage. He alleges that notwithstanding that he performed all of his duties and was ready to complete the voyage, no part of his wages have been paid to him.

Walker claims a preferred maritime lien for the wages due him, and demands that he be paid by preference out of the proceeds of the sale of the said vessel before [230]*230all other persons except other wage claimants similarly situated.

In passing, it may be stated that as a part of his third cause of action, Walker claimed the sum of $2,600, alleged to have been advanced by him for the payment of a note due Maritime Salvage Equipment Corporation for funds advanced to pay crew’s wages. This claim has since been abandoned.

Walter Krauss, Inc., on Jaunary 14, 1949, filed its intervening libel for an advance of $300, alleged to have been made by it to Rose L. Martin, for provisions and supplies, and wages due the crew.

Marine Management, Inc., on January 20, 1949, filed its intervention, alleging that it furnished, in October, 1948, materials to the vessel in the sum of $12.20, and on November 24, 1948, advanced to Rose L. Martin the sum of $100 for the purpose of paying crew’s wages, or furnishing the crew with food.

In a separate proceeding bearing No. 1582 of the Admiralty docket of this court, Michael Gelland and others, on December 17, 1948, filed their libel in rem for wages due them as members of the Amiga Mia’s crew. The court, on February 1, 1949, entered an order consolidating for trial the wage claims and claims for funds alleged to have been advanced for wages of the crew in the instant case with the libel of Michael Gelland and others, No. 1582 Admiralty.

The court, on February 16, 1949, on stipulation and joint motion of respective counsel for the original libellant, Woolsey, Michael Gelland and his co-libellants, Am-ore and Tosti, and another intervenor which subsequently withdrew its intervention, entered an order requiring the Clerk of Court to pay to Michael Gelland and his co-libellants sums aggregating $3,856.97 in full payment, discharge and satisfaction of their respective claims.

Counsel for Walker did not join in the motion and stipulation, but signified on a copy of the order that they made no objection thereto.

Hearing was in due course had on the wage claims and claims for the wage advances, at which time the claim of Marine Management, Inc. was not reached, and, as a consequence, that matter remains open.

This brings us to the consideration of the claims of Walker, Amore and Tosti.

The Amiga Mia, a former Coast Guard vessel, was purchased by Rose L. Martin, at Baltimore, Md., early in June, 1947, for the purpose of coversion into a yacht. Within a week after the purchase, Miss Martin employed Paul M. Walker to work on the vessel at wages of $475.00 per month, and $110.00 per month found. According to Walker, while the vessel was at Baltimore, his duties consisted of supervising conversion work on the vessel, and overseeing the vessel’s crew, and that at that time he was mainly concerned with removing certain Navy equipment and gear from the vessel, and cooperating with the architect who had made a preliminary plan as to those things which had to be taken out in order for new equipment to be installed. He states that in connection with this work, he inspected the hull, woodwork and inside of the vessel, and claims that in addition to the supervision, inspection and other work which he did in connection with the conversion, he assisted members of the crew in scraping and painting the hull of the vessel. Walker testified that the number of men in the crew varied from time to time; that he picked out the men at the Union Hall, brought them to the owner, and that she did the hiring and fixed the wages. He states that while the vessel was at Baltimore, he did not at any time pay off the crew.

The vessel remained in Baltimore until some time in September, 1947, when it was towed to New York. There is some conflict in the testimony as to whether Walker was aboard the vessel during its trip from Baltimore to New York.

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

Related

Kennerson v. Jane R., Inc.
274 F. Supp. 28 (S.D. Texas, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
90 F. Supp. 228, 1950 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3764, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woolsey-v-amiga-mia-laed-1950.