First Suffolk National Bank v. The Air Brant

• Decision Date: 07 November 1954
• Citation: 125 F. Supp. 709
• Parties: FIRST SUFFOLK NATIONAL BANK OF HUNTINGTON, Libelant, v. THE AIR BRANT, etc. THE DEMAND, etc.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

125 F. Supp. 709

FIRST SUFFOLK NATIONAL BANK OF HUNTINGTON, Libelant, v. THE AIR BRANT, etc THE DEMAND, etc.

United States District Court E. D. New York.

November 7, 1954.

Abraham W. Sereysky, New York City, for petitioner Prather-Johnston, Inc.

Bernhardt, Sahn, Shapiro & Epstein, New York City, Mendes & Mount, Walter B. Hall, New York City, of counsel, for First Suffolk Nat. Bank, libelant.

Alfred J. Bedard, New York City, By Julian A. Ronan, New York City, of counsel, for respondent Burmeister & Wain American Corp.

Kreis & Kreis, New York City, for Consolidated Fisheries Co. INCH, Chief Judge.

On January 22, 1954 libelant, the First Suffolk National Bank of Huntington, duly recorded a fleet mortgage against both the vessels herein concerned. On August 23, 1954, libelant duly proceeded against the vessels in rem to foreclose this preferred mortgage, and the United States marshal, now in possession of the vessels, is about to sell same.

After the recording of the mortgage, Prather-Johnston, Inc., installed certain fish pumps and pertinent equipment aboard said vessels under a conditional sales agreement, said equipment becoming an integral part of these fishing vessels and essential to their navigation and operation as such.

The same is true as to 34 blocks and 8 fish boat davits which it is alleged were loaned by Consolidated Fisheries Company to the owner of the vessels, but which were also installed on the vessels and were essential to their navigation and operation as fishing vessels.

This Court is now asked by these two parties to be allowed to remove the above-mentioned essential items of equipment from the vessels prior to the marshal's sale. The effect of this, if successful, would be to reduce materially the prospective bids of potential purchasers at the marshal's sale. In any event, all of the above items of equipment are essential to the navigation and operation of these vessels as fishing vessels, and being part of the res, are subject to process in rem regardless of title. See The Augusta, 5 Cir., 15 F.2d 727; The Katherine, 5 Cir., 15 F.2d 387; The Hope, 1 Cir., 191 F. 243; Learned v. Brown, 5 Cir., 94 F. 876; The Showboat, 1 Cir., 47 F.2d 286; Turner v. United States, 2 Cir., 27 F.2d 134; The Joseph Warner, 1 Cir., 32 F.Supp. 532; The Hirondelle, D.C., 21 F.Supp. 223; The Frolic, 1 Cir., 148 F. 921.

Moreover, the purpose of the Ship Mortgage Act, 46 U.S.C.A. § 911 et seq., was to establish sound security in favor of loans...