Bywater v. A. Raft of Piles
| Decision Date | 17 June 1890 |
| Citation | 42 F. 917 |
| Parties | BYWATER et al. v. A RAFT OF PILES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
R. S Greene and L. T. Turner, for libelants.
J. C Haines, for claimants.
The libelants in this cause claim compensation for salvage services rendered in arresting, towing to a place of safety and securing a raft of piles found adrift and derelict in Seattle harbor. The claimants, who are owners of the piles deny that the property is a subject of salvage under maritime law; deny that it was in peril at the time of being taken in charge of by the libelants; and deny that the facts make a case within the jurisdiction of a court of admiralty. The material facts of the case are that the raft in question had been moored by its owners, the claimants in this case, at a wharf owned by them situated in the southern part of Seattle bay. That on the morning of a pleasant day in June, in some manner, it got loose and went adrift, and between 8 and 9 o'clock in the morning was discovered by one of the libelants about one miles north of the wharf to which it had been moored, and something over one mile from the eastern shore of the bay, drifting on an ebb-tide towards the harbor entrance. There was at the time a light breeze from the south-west, and the water was smooth. The libelant Elliott was owner of a small steam-tug called the Violet, and the other libelants were at the time connected with this vessel as master, engineer, and deck-hand, constituting her entire crew, and the tug was then employed as a general jobbing boat, doing towing and like service on Seattle bay and the neighboring waters, and earning on an average $25 to $30 per day; the usual rates for services such as this boat had capacity to render, when employed by the hours, being $2.50 per hour. When the libelants discovered the raft, the tug was in her berth at the wharf, with steam up, and ready to accept any offer of employment that might be made to her, and they immediately went to the raft, and brought it in, and secured it to a wharf opposit to which it had drifted on the eastern shore of the bay; in doing which, between two and three hours' time was consumed. The raft was quite valuable worth at least $2,200, and was at the time of being so taken charge of by the libelants out of the control of its owners, and in apparent imminent danger of being lost, although the real danger was but slight, and in rescuing it the libelants incurred no danger to themselves, and suffered no hardships, more than is incident to their usual and every-day employment. In towing the raft and mooring it the libelants used lines provided by themselves from -he tug of the value of $13, which have not been returned to them. One of the claimants discovered the departure of the raft very soon aster the libelants had found it, and ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McRae v. Bowers Dredging Co.
...Endless Chain Dredge, 40 F. 253; Coasting Co. v. The Commodore, 40 F. 258; Seabrook v. Raft of Railroad Cross-Ties, 40 F. 596; Bywater v. Raft of Piles, 42 F. 917; The City Pittsburgh, 45 F. 699; The Progresso, 46 F. 292; The St. Louis, 48 F. 313; The Wilmington, 48 F. 566; Stebbins v. Five......
-
Tidewater Salvage, Inc. v. Weyerhaeuser Co.
...States District Judge, District of Montana, sitting by designation.1 Whitmire v. Cobb, 88 F. 91 (5th Cir. 1898); Bywater v. A Raft of Piles, 42 F. 917 (D.Wash.1890).2 W. P. L. Services, Inc. v. Bisso Towboat Co., 598 F.2d 417 (5th Cir. 1979).3 Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co. v. Indian Tow......
-
Colby v. Todd Packing Co.
...page 431, No. 7,741a; Raft of Spars, 20 Fed.Cas. page 173, No. 11,529; Muntz v. A. Raft of Timber, C.C., 15 F. 555; Bywater v. A Raft of Piles, D.C., 42 F. 917; Whitmire v. Cobb, 5 Cir., 88 F. 91. Nor is Tome v. Four Cribs of Lumber, 24 Fed.Cas. page 18, No. 14,083 in conflict with the fore......
-
Whitmire v. Cobb
...found drifting with the tide on deep water, in the harbor and out of the control of the owners, is the subject of salvage. Bywater v. A Raft of Piles, 42 F. 917. See, Muntz v. A Raft of Timber, 15 F. 555; A Raft of Spars, 1 Abb.Adm. 485, Fed. Cas. No. 11,529; Fifty Thousand Feet of Timber, ......