Reed v. Weule

• Decision Date: 08 March 1910
• Docket Number: 1,713.
• Citation: 176 F. 660
• Parties: REED v. WEULE et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

176 F. 660

REED v. WEULE et al.

No. 1,713.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

March 8, 1910

Frank &amp Mansfield, for appellant.

F. R Wall and Henry Taylor, for appellees.

Before GILBERT and MORROW, Circuit Judges, and HUNT, District Judge.

HUNT District Judge.

Libel by Louis Weule Company, a copartnership, makers and suppliers of nautical instruments, against W. I. Reed, late owner of the barquentine 'Amelia' of Oakland, Cal., in a cause of contract civil and maritime.

Libelants allege that on July 13, 1906, at San Francisco, libelants loaned to the then owners of the Amelia a chronometer; that the owners promised to return the chronometer to libelants in good order within six months, or pay to said libelants $100 the agreed value of the chronometer; that the said owners also agreed to pay to libelants $4 a month as hire for the chronometer until it was returned or paid for; that on September 13, 1906, the ship was sold by her owners to W. I. Reed, respondent; but that when the sale was made the chronometer had not been paid for and no rent therefor had been paid; that, at the time of the sale of the vessel to Reed, Reed knew of the contract with libelants, and knew that the chronometer belonged to the libelants, and that neither rent nor purchase price had been paid; that, when the ship was sold to Reed, the chronometer passed into his possession and remained there until March 11, 1907, when respondent, Reed, sold and delivered the chronometer to the San Juan Fishing & Packing Company; that respondent, Reed, had the use and benefit of the chronometer from September 13, 1906, to March 11, 1907; that a reasonable value was $36 for such use; that $100 is the reasonable value of the chronometer; that libelants had demanded payment of the value and rent of the chronometer, but payment has been refused; that the demand for the return of the chronometer has been refused.

The prayer is for a decree for $100, the value of the chronometer, and $36, the value of the use thereof, together with interest and costs, and general relief.

The respondent excepted to the aforesaid libel upon the ground that no cause of action was stated against respondent, in that there was no privity of contract between libelants and respondent. Respondent also challenged the jurisdiction of the court upon the ground that the facts stated do not constitute a maritime contract. The court overruled the exceptions, and thereupon respondent answered, specifically denying that he knew of the contract set forth in the libel, or that he knew that the chronometer was the property of these libelants, or that the rent or purchase price had not been paid. Respondent admits that at the time of his purchase of the vessel the chronometer passed into his possession; but he says that, the chronometer being on board when he purchased the ship, it was left there by the former owner, and no one demanded the chronometer, and it was allowed to remain upon the ship until December, 1906, when the ship was wrecked and the chronometer was taken off and stored. Respondent alleges that afterwards the libelants made demand for the chronometer, and that he informed libelants they could go and get it. He denies that on March 11, 1907, or at any other time, he sold or delivered the chronometer to the San Juan Fishing & Packing Company, and denies that he had the use and benefit of the chronometer from September 13, 1906, to March 11, 1907, except as already set forth.

Testimony was taken, and thereafter the court filed a memorandum opinion finding that 'all of the allegations' of the libel are true except that in relation to the value of the use of the chronometer referred to in the libel during the time the chronometer was in the possession of the respondent, W. I. Reed; and as to this the court found the value of the use to be $24.

As a conclusion of law it was decreed that libelants were entitled to recover $24 for the use of the chronometer and $100 as the value of the chronometer. Interest and costs were allowed libelants. From the decree duly entered, respondent appealed to this court.

The case comes within the well-established rule that, while this court is not limited to the review of questions of law only in admiralty appeals, yet, where decision involves questions of fact dependent upon conflicting testimony, the finding of the district judge will not be set aside unless it is clear that the decision is against the weight of evidence. The ...