The Favorite
| Decision Date | 13 May 1882 |
| Citation | 12 F. 213 |
| Parties | THE FAVORITE. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Schuyler & Kremer, for libellants.
Richberg & Kniep and A. McCoy, for respondents.
BLODGETT D.J.
On the second of August, 1877, a collision occurred upon the waters of Lake Michigan between the steam-propeller Favorite, and the schooner Grace A. Channon, by which the schooner and her cargo of coal were sunk, and became a total loss. On the sixteenth of the same month a libel was filed in this court by owners of the Channon against the Favorite, charging the collision to have occurred through the negligence of those in charge of the steamer, and claiming to recover as damages the value of the schooner and her freight. A further libel was subsequently filed by . . . Graham to recover damages for the death of a child who was a passenger on the schooner and was drowned by reason of the collision, and the Providence Washington Insurance Company, who had insured the cargo of the schooner, and paid the loss which accrued under their policy, also filed a libel for the amount so paid. After the filing of the libel by the owners of the schooner, and the arrest of the steamer, the Kirby Carpenter Lumber Company who was the sole owner of the steamer at the time of the collision, applied to this court, under admiralty rules 54, 55, 56 and 57, for a limitation of its liability as such owner for damages occasioned by such collision to the value of the steamer and her freight then pending, and such steps were taken that the value of the steamer, her machinery boats, tackle, apparel, and furniture, (there being no freight pending,) was appraised and fixed at $12,397.80, and her owners, by stipulation, with approved sureties, agreed to make payment of that sum into court whenever ordered, and the steamer was thereupon released from arrest and delivered to her owners. Upon hearing on pleadings and proofs of the libels for damages, the court found the steamer in fault, and directed a reference to a commissioner to take proof and report the damages sustained by the respective libellants. The commissioner reported that he finds--
| The value of the schooner, at the time she was sunk by the collision, was | $15,000 00 |
| That her freight then pending amounted to $277.50, for which she should be allowed one-half, ................................... | 138 75 |
| Damages in the Graham suit from the death of child, ............... | 1,000 00 |
| Damages to Providence Washington Insurance Company, insurance of cargo, ....................................................... | 2,500 00 |
| ---------- | |
| Making a total of damages sustained by the several libellants, .. | $18,638 75 |
By his report the commissioner finds that the several libellants were entitled to share pro rata in the amount fixed as the value of the steamer at the time of the collision; and he also finds that the Kirby Carpenter Company, having appeared as claimant in these several suits, and contested its liability and the liability of the steamer for such collision, is liable for not only the amount called for by the stipulation as the value of the steamer, but also interest upon the same at rate of 6 per cent. per annum from the date of the collision, together with the costs incurred by the several libelants in their respective suits. Exceptions are filed to as much of the reports as charge the respondent with interest and costs; respondent, the Kirby Carpenter Company, insisting that the amount called for by the stipulation, which was the appraised value of its interest in the steamer at the time of the collision, constitutes the full measure of its liability, and that it is not liable beyond that sum for interest and costs, or either.
The only question to be considered under these exceptions, therefore, is as to the correctness of the commissioner's findings in regard to respondent's liability for interests and costs. By the fifty-fourth rule in admiralty it is provided that--
'Said court having caused due appraisement to be had of the amount or value of the interest of said owner or owners respectively, in such ship or vessel, and her freight for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The George W. Roby
......As such a course was. open to the court it is clear that it might, as a condition. of release upon bond, require that the stipulators' bond. should bear interest from date. The Wanata, 95 U.S. 600, 24. L.Ed. 461; In re Harris, 6 C.C.A. 320, 57 F. 243. In. The Favorite (D.C.) 12 F. 213, Judge Blodgett held that the. owners might, irrespective of any prior order or stipulation,. be required to pay interest upon the value of the vessel from. the date of collision, the decree going against the owners. and their surety in the stipulation for the value only, ......
-
The Harrisburg
......384; 34 Leg.Int. 394; The Chas. Morgan, 18 Law Reg. 624; The Sea Gull, Chase,. Dec. 148; The Highland Light, Id. 150; Cutting. v. Seabury, 1 Spr. 525; Long Island Transp. Co. 5 F. 599; The Garland, Id. 984; Holmes v. O. & C.R. Co. Id. 75; The Sylvan Glen, 9 F. 335; The Favorite, 12. F. 213; The Epsilon, 6 Ben. 379; Taylor v. Dewar,. 117 E.C.L. 63. . . The. rule of the common law that no redress can be had for such. injuries is peculiar to that jurisprudence, and does not. obtain in the admiralty. Sullivan v. Railroad Co. 3. Dill. 337; De Lovio v. Boit, 2 ......
-
The Leonard Richards
...... distinct from and not based upon his claim for limited. liability, and in such litigation is worsted, it is equitable. and just that the taxable costs thereby necessarily incurred. by his opponent should, in accord with the general rule and. common practice, be paid by him. The Favorite, 12 F. 213;. Hen. Adm. 296; Thommasen v. Whitwill, 12 F. 891. . . Another. question mooted is whether the material-men having claims. against the Leonard Richards should be enjoined from bringing. their actions to recover them. I think not. The limited. liability act of 1851 does ......
-
In re Harris
...... belongs to the creditors, its increment (to the extent of. their claims) will also belong to them. Where, however, it is. not paid into court, it remains in the hands of the debtor,. and, for the use of a fund not belonging to him, it is but. fair and just that he should pay. The Favorite, 12 F. 213. In. cases, therefore, where the owner elects not to transfer, and. asks to be allowed to receive his vessel upon stipulating to. pay the appraised value of his interest at some future day,. instead of substituting the money for the res, it is. eminently proper that he should be ......