Brady v. The Steamship African Queen, 8056.
| Decision Date | 28 January 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 8056.,8056. |
| Citation | 179 F. Supp. 321 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
| Parties | Paul K. BRADY, Lloyd E. Deir, Beldon N. Little and Alvah E. Sadler, Libellants, v. THE STEAMSHIP AFRICAN QUEEN, her engines, tackle, apparel, etc., Respondents. |
Vandeventer, Black & Meredith, Hugh S. Meredith, Norfolk, Va., Landon Maxey, Suffolk, Va., and J. Lewis Rawls, Jr., Norfolk, Va., for Brady, Deir and Sadler.
Henry E. Howell, Jr., Norfolk, Va., for Little.
David H. Batchelder, Jr., Norfolk, Va., and Zock, Petrie, Sheneman & Reid, John Sheneman, New York City, for Gifford B. Warner, intervening libellant.
Seawell, McCoy, Winston & Dalton, Harry E. McCoy, Norfolk, Va., for Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corp., intervening libellant.
In this controversy between the libellants, Brady, Deir, Little and Sadler, on the one part, and the intervening libellant, Warner, on the other part, it is clear that Warner first boarded the stern section of the African Queen on March 11, 1959, following its abandonment by the owners and underwriters on February 12, 1959; the vessel having previously grounded on a shoal nine miles off the coast of Ocean City, Maryland, on December 30, 1958, and her bow section having split from the stern and floated approximately two miles away.
The evidence conclusively establishes that the libellants, Deir and Little, together with their financial backers, Brady and Sadler, performed all of the salvage operations incident to raising the stern section and finally succeeded in towing the stern of the vessel into Norfolk during the early morning of September 27, 1959. These libellants had remained aboard the vessel, either in person or through their representatives, continuously since March 17, 1959, following their initial visit to the vessel on March 14, 1959. They have expended large sums of money in a venture which has been given widespread publicity by reason of their accomplishments under adverse conditions. Treating libellants' claim in the light of a salvage operation, aside from the claim of the intervening libellant, the salvage services far exceed the value of the vessel in the present day open market.
The intervening libellant, Warner, placed too much stress upon the assertion of legal rights, and not enough in support of his intentions to justify his claim either as a finder or salvor. His position is not unlike that of the young man who expresses an interest in a young lady. In effect, he had one date with the lady and she aroused his interest sufficiently to make it appear that he would like to pursue the romance if the young lady was attractive from a monetary standpoint. With knowledge, however, that another suitor was engaging in a courtship, the intervening libellant elected to take no further action and awaited the result of the activities of the subsequent suitor. Now that the second suitor has pursued his courtship with success, and his proposal of marriage has been accepted, the rejected suitor registers his objection to the marriage. His objection comes too late.
While it is conceded that one who has taken possession of a vessel, has begun the salvage service, and is successfully prosecuting it, is entitled to the sole possession of the property, the activities of Warner with respect to the stern section fall far short of meeting these essentials. Considering the evidence as a whole, this Court is unable to find that Warner posted the stern section on March 11, 1959, in the manner related by him. The testimony of Croswell who, together with one Townsend, accompanied Warner to the wreck on March 11, pointedly suggests that Warner posted no signs and, in any event, made no statement as to his intentions of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cobb Coin v. UNIDENT., WRECKED & ABAN. SAIL. VESSEL
...undertake to rescue, abandoned property may lose his right to uninterrupted salvage operations. The case of Brady v. S.S. African Queen, 179 F.Supp. 321 (E.D.Va.1960) is illustrative of this point. In Brady, the intervening libellant, Warner, based his claim solely on the strength of having......
-
Columbus-America Discovery Group v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co.
...Law § 15-7, at 512 (1987); Hener, 525 F.Supp. at 357; 3A Benedict on Admiralty § 158, at 11-16; see also Brady v. The Steamship AFRICAN QUEEN, 179 F.Supp. 321, 324 (E.D.Va.1960) (the law of finds should be applied only in "extreme cases where the property is wholly derelict and affirmativel......
-
Platoro Ltd., Inc. v. Unidentified Remains of a Vessel, Her Cargo, Apparel, Tackle, and Furniture, in a Cause of Salvage, Civil and Maritime
...with an award of title to the res under the law of finds. See Treasure Salvors, 569 F.2d at 337; Brady v. The Steamship African Queen, 179 F.Supp. 321, 324 (E.D.Va.1960). In this case, where Texas has a strong interest in keeping the res because of its historical significance to the State, ......
-
Smith v. The Abandoned Vessel
...who simply discover or locate such property, but do not undertake to reduce it to possession, are not."); cf. Brady v. The African Queen, 179 F.Supp. 321, 324 (D.Va.1960) (holding that a claimant who boarded a derelict vessel and published a newspaper advertisement claiming salvage rights, ......
-
Application of salvage law and the law of finds to sunken shipwreck discoveries.
...14-7, at 800; Columbus-America Discovery, 974 F.2d at 460-61. (16.) McLean, supra note 12, at 480. (17.) 22 Ark. 499 (1861). (18.) 179 F.Supp. 321 (E.D. Va. (19.) 186 F.Supp. 452 (E.D. Va. 1960). (20.) 836 F.Supp. 1099 (D. N.J. 1993). (21.) 569 F.2d 330 (5th Cir. 1978) (Treasure Salvors I).......