THE STJERNEBORG, 7331
| Decision Date | 07 December 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 7331,7334.,7331 |
| Citation | 25 F. Supp. 594 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington |
| Parties | THE STJERNEBORG. SIGNAL OIL & GAS CO. OF CALIFORNIA v. DAMPSKIBSSELSKABET DANNEBROG. THE BRAND. SIGNAL OIL & GAS CO. OF CALIFORNIA v. AKTIESELSKABET BORGESTAD. |
John S. Robinson and Fairbrook & Williams, all of Seattle, Wash., for libelant in both causes.
Hayden, Merritt, Summers & Bucey, of Seattle, Wash., for claimants in both causes.
The stipulated facts show that the oil was furnished upon the credit of the vessels and that, in consequence, the asserted liens were created. The South Coast, South Coast S. S. Co. v. Rudbach, 251 U.S. 519, 40 S.Ct. 233, 64 L.Ed. 386; Piedmont Coal Co. v. Seaboard Fisheries Co., 254 U.S. 1-10, 41 S.Ct. 1, 65 L.Ed. 97, citing with approval The Bronx, 2 Cir., 246 F. 809; The Golden Gate, 9 Cir., 52 F.2d 397, certiorari denied Knutsen v. Associated Oil Co., 284 U.S. 682, 52 S.Ct. 199, 76 L.Ed. 576; The Luddco 41, 9 Cir., 66 F.2d 997; The Portland, 9 Cir., 273 F. 401; The Astorian, 9 Cir., 57 F.2d 85-89 et seq. See, also, The Everosa, 1 Cir., 93 F. 2d 732; The Palnatoke, 1934 A.M.C. 936.
An alternative defense asserted in each case is that the acceptance, in July, 1934, by libelant from charterer of a pledge of certain collateral to secure payment for the oil furnished and the release by libelant of the excess realized therefrom after satisfaction of the senior claim of libelant's co-pledgee constituted a waiver, if it existed, of the asserted lien. The pledge agreement provided:
No interest in the pledged collateral upon the part of claimants or respondents is shown. No intervening rights are involved. The owners are not shown to have relied upon this pledge or to have known of it. This transaction did not constitute a waiver.
A further alternative defense asserted is that libelant, by agreeing in August, 1934 not to enforce prior to September 1st, 1935 payment for the oil by charterer (from which agreement libelant was by charterer released in April, 1935) waived any lien which might exist.
This agreement provided: "This agreement is signed by Signal Oil and Gas Company with the understanding that nothing therein contained shall constitute any release or waiver of any lien or the right to a lien which Signal Oil and Gas Company, a Delaware corporation, has or may have on or against any vessels for supplies furnished said vessels, or any of them, while said vessels, or any of them, were entrusted to the management of the debtor named in said agreement, provided, however, that Signal Oil and Gas Company agrees not to enforce such liens against any of said vessels for the period this agreement is in effect unless and excepting enforcement is necessary to prevent the loss of said lien rights by destruction, sale or other disposition of said vessels, or any of them."
No intention upon Libelant's part to waive its lien is shown by this transaction nor did it amount to laches.
In the case of the Stjerneborg, No. 7331, a further alternative defense or partial defense has been interposed, Claimant alleging:
In this matter the facts stipulated are as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dampskibsselskabet Dannebrog v. Signal Oil Gas Co of California the Stjerneborg
...alleging that the oil was furnished upon the charterers' credit and not upon that of the vessel. The District Court sustained the liens (25 F.Supp. 594) and the Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decrees. 9 Cir., 106 F.2d 896. Because of an alleged conflict with decisions of the Circuit ......