Cope v. Valletteco

Decision Date10 January 1887
Docket NumberDRY-DOCK
Citation119 U.S. 625,30 L.Ed. 501,7 S.Ct. 336
PartiesCOPE and others v. VALLETTECO. 1
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

J. R. Beckwith, for appellants, Cope and others.

A. Goldtheaite, for appellees, Vallette Dry-dock Co.

BRADLEY, J.

This is a libel for salvage filed in the district court for the Eastern district of Louisiana by the owners of the steam-tug Col. L. Aspinwall, her master and crew, and the owner of the steam-tug Joseph Cooper, and her crew, against the Vallette Dry-dock Company of New Orleans, to recover salvage for salving the company's dry-dock at Algiers, opposite New Orleans, from sinking and becoming a total loss. According to the allegations of the libel, the said dry-dock was run into by the steam-ship Clintonia, which did not obey her helm, and, by the force of the collision, a large hole was broken into the side of the dock, extending below the water-line, and it began to fill with water, and commenced sinking, and would have sunk but for the exertions of the libelants, who hastened to its relief, and applied their suction pumps in pumping out the water with which it was being filled, and thus, at large expense and much trouble, saved her from destruction. The libel alleges that the Vallette dry-dock is a large floating vessel and water-craft and artificial contrivance, used and capable of being used as a means of transportation in water, and was of great value, having cost upward of $200,000, and was largely and profitably engaged in the business of docking vessels for repairs in the Mississippi river, and the libelants claim that their services were of the greatest merit, deserving a reward of at least $5,000.

The respondents pleaded, first, res judicata, alleging that a similar libel for the same cause had been formerly filed in the same court, and dismissed for want of jurisdiction. This plea was overruled. Their second plea was to the effect that the case is not one of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; that the assistance rendered by the libelants to the dry-dock was not a salvage service; that the dry-dock is not devoted to the purpose of transportation and commerce, nor intended for navigation; that it is nothing more than pieces of lumber, fastened together, and placed upon the water to receive vessels for repair, and having engines used, not for the purpose of locomotion from one place to another, (of which, by its own resources, it is incapable,) but solely to lower and elevate said dock, in order to receive vessels for repair; that it was always solely employed in the business of docking and repairing vessels; that at the time of the alleged salvage services it was moored and lying at its usual place, where it had been located ever since the year 1866. Proofs being taken, the district court dismissed the libel upon the plea to the jurisdiction; and, on appeal to the circuit court, the same decree was made.

The facts found by the circuit court substantially corroborate the plea. They describe the dry-dock as a structure contrived for the purpose of taking ships out of the water, in order to repair them, and for no other purpose. They state that it consisted of a large oblong box, with a flat bottom and perpendicular sides; that in the year 1866 it had been put in position by being permanently moored by means of large chains to the right or Algiers bank of the Mississippi river, and was sparred off from the bank by means of spars to keep it afloat. When it was desired to dock a steam-boat or other vessel, it was sunk by letting in water until the vessel to be docked could be floated into it. It was then raised by pumping the water out, leaving the docked vessel in a position to be inspected and repaired. It was furnished with engines, but they could only be used for pumping, and the dry-dock had no means of propulsion, either by wind, steam, or otherwise. It was not designed for navigation, and could not be practically used therefor. The circumstances of the collision and rescue were substantially as stated in the libel. As a conclusion of law, the circuit court found that the services of the libelants were not salvage services, and that neither that court nor the district court had jurisdiction of the case.

We have no hesitation in saying that the decree of the circuit court was right. A fixed structure, such as this dry-dock is, not used for the purpose of navigation, is not a subject of salvage service, any more than is a wharf or a warehouse when projecting into or upon the water. The fact that it floats on the water does not make it a ship or vessel, and no structure that is not a ship or vessel is a subject of salvage. A ferry-bridge is generally a floating structure, hinged or chained to a wharf. This might be the subject of salvage as well as a dry-dock. A sailor's floating bethel or meeting-house, moored to a wharf, and kept in place by a paling of surrounding piles, is in the same category. It can hardly be contended that such at structure is susceptible of salvage service. A ship or vessel, used for navigation and commerce, though lying at a wharf, and temporarily made fast thereto, as well as her furniture and cargo,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
114 cases
  • Bernard v. Binnings Const. Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • September 17, 1984
    ...for the operation of and common to both principles, is absent upon floating dry-docks. Id. at 283 (citing Cope v. Vallette Dry-Dock Co., 119 U.S. 625, 7 S.Ct. 336, 30 L.Ed. 501 (1887) (dry dock not a vessel for salvage purposes)). See also Chahoc v. Hunt Shipyard, 431 F.2d 576, 577 (5th Cir......
  • U.S. v. West Indies Transport, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • October 15, 1997
    ...1322, our view is in accord with long-standing interpretation of the term "vessel" in other contexts. See Cope v. Vallette Dry-Dock Co., 119 U.S. 625, 7 S.Ct. 336, 30 L.Ed. 501 (1887) (dry dock attached to shore by large chains, with no means of propulsion, and incapable of being used for n......
  • U.S. v. Ehrlichman
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • February 22, 1977
    ... ... 12 ...         One is hard put to know how to cope with the assertion in the Amicus Curiae Memorandum that it "has long been" the position of the Department of Justice that warrantless physical ... ...
  • Adamson v. Port of Bellingham
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • August 14, 2018
    ...accidents had no more connection with the ordinary stuff of admiralty than do accidents on piers"); Cope v. Vallette Dry-Dock Co. , 119 U.S. 625, 627, 7 S.Ct. 336, 30 L.Ed. 501 (1887) (explaining that a fixed structure, such as a dry-dock, is not used for the purpose of navigation any more ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Offshore Windfarms: What Laws Apply?
    • United States
    • Loyola Maritime Law Journal Vol. 20 No. 1, December 2020
    • December 22, 2020
    ...Shelf Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. [section] 1333 (1984) (emphasis added). (46) 1 U.S.C. [section] 3 (1947). (47) Cope v. Vallette Dry-Dock Co., 119 U.S. 625, 629 (48) Stewart v. Dutra Const. Co., 543 U.S. 481, 488-89 (2005). (49) Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, 568 U.S. 115, 121 (2013) (stating a......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT