The George W. Fields

• Citation: 237 F. 403
• Parties: THE GEORGE W. FIELDS.
• Decision Date: 12 April 1915
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

237 F. 403

THE GEORGE W. FIELDS.

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

April 12, 1915

J Parker Kirlin, of New York City, for petitioner.

Mark Ash, of New York City, for claimant.

LEARNED HAND, District Judge.

It is now settled that a single claim will support a limitation proceeding. White v. Island Transportation Co., 233 U.S. 346, 34 Sup.Ct. 589, 58 L.Ed. 993. But it has been decided in the Ninth circuit that this single claim must be greater than the value of the vessel. Shipowners' &amp Merchants' Transportation Tugboat Co. v. Hammond Lumber Co., 218 F. 161, 134 C.C.A. 575. The last seems also to have been Judge Brown's opinion. The Garden City, 26 F 766, 772. But in the same case Judge Brown held a petition valid, though the claims actually brought were a very small part of the value of the vessel, because he could not say that there might not be other claims which he would not ask the petitioner to wait for. He held it was not necessary to aver or prove that the aggregate of the claims was more than the value. Judge Chatfield made the same ruling in The Defender (D.C.) 201 F. 189. Perhaps it is true that, if there be a single claim, less than the value, the proceeding is unnecessary, and the reasoning applies equally well, if the aggregate of several claims, definitely known, be less than the value. The practical difficulty lies in knowing whether the claims actually filed are the only ones, and, if there are others, how many they are and how large. If the petition were to allege that the aggregate of all possible claims was less than the value, if the statute of limitations had run upon all claims, as suggested by Judge Chatfield in The Defender (D.C.) 201 F. 189, if the nature of the accident were such as could result by no chance in more than one claim (Shipowners', etc., Co. v. Hammond Lumber Co., 218 F. 161, 134 C.C.A. 575), then the petition might be open to exception, but here there is nothing of that sort.

The petitioner alleges that he has heard of other claims from the crew for personal injury and loss of effects, though none have been made. It does not appear how many men were on the boat, or whether they suffered any personal injury; the statute of limitations has not run, and it is not yet fanciful that they might sue. I think it clear that the petitioner should not be required at his peril to aver and prove that there are claims for more than the value of the vessel, for,...