City of Los Angeles v. United Dredging Co.
| Decision Date | 01 November 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 4835.,4835. |
| Citation | 14 F.2d 364 |
| Parties | CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al. v. UNITED DREDGING CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Jess E. Stephens, City Atty., Lucius Green, Asst. City Atty., and Cecil A. Borden, Deputy City Atty., all of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellants.
Eugene Overton, E. D. Lyman, P. B. Plumb, L. K. Vermille, and Geo. W. Prince, Jr., all of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before GILBERT, HUNT, and RUDKIN, Circuit Judges.
The city of Los Angeles and certain of its officials appeal from a decree enjoining and restraining them from enforcing as against appellee, the United Dredging Company, a Delaware corporation, the provisions of an ordinance of the city.
The ordinance makes it a misdemeanor to operate steam boilers and appliances without first having submitted the same to inspection and procuring a license from a local board of mechanical engineers, and to employ or permit any person to use and operate the same other than an engineer duly licensed by such board.
Appellee was operating steam dredges in Los Angeles harbor and within the corporate boundaries of the city for the purpose of deepening and widening the navigable waters of the harbor, and was engaged in fulfilling contracts with the government for certain work. Appellee operated the steam equipment of its dredges, consisting of boilers and other steam-generating apparatus, as defined by the ordinance referred to, without submitting the same to the inspection called for by the ordinance, and without procuring a license as prescribed therein, authorizing such operation and also employed persons unlicensed by the board of mechanical engineers as operatives of the machines. The city caused the arrests of the employees of the dredging company and threatened further arrests if violations continued.
The question is: Are the dredges of the class of vessels required to be inspected, and to be operated by licensed engineers, under the laws of the United States? It is conceded that, if this question is answered affirmatively, the jurisdiction of the United States is exclusive, and the decree must be affirmed.
Section 10 of the act to amend the laws relating to navigation, and for other purposes (35 Stat. c. 212 Comp. St. § 8178), provides that the local inspectors of steamboats shall, at least once in every year, inspect the hull and equipment of every seagoing barge of 100 gross tons or over, and shall satisfy themselves that such barge is of a structure suitable for the service in which she is to be employed, has suitable accommodations for the crew, and is in a condition to warrant the belief that she may be used in navigation with safety to life. They shall then issue a certificate of inspection in the manner and for the purposes prescribed in sections 4421 and 4423 of the Revised Statutes (Comp. St. §§ 8182, 8184). By section 3 of the Revised Statutes (9 Fed. St. Ann. 2d Ed. 391 Comp. St. § 3) the word "vessel" includes every description of water craft or other artificial contrivance used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on water.
The evidence shows that the boats involved are great barges, with dredging machinery and boilers put upon hulls, having depth and stanchness to make it possible for them to be towed at sea; that they are decked over with hatches, and carry crews of engineers and assistants during their operations; that they are often towed long distances over the high seas. As the barges are not propelled by steam, the Revised Statutes, which have to do with steam vessels, as defined by section 4399 et seq. (Comp. St. § 8151 et seq.), are not pertinent.
We hold that the barges are water craft capable of being used as a means of transportation on water; that they are built to be used in navigable waters, and are intended to transport machinery, supplies, and crews necessary to dig out mud and other obstructions in harbors in aid of navigation. In 1876, Judge Benedict, in the District Court in New York, in a proceeding in rem by a materialman to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brinegar v. San Ore Construction Company
...Seabrook v. Raft of Railroad Cross-Ties, 40 F. 596 (D.C., 1889); Re Eastern Dredging Co., 138 F. 942 (1905); City of Los Angeles v. United Dredging Co., 14 F.2d 364 (9 Cir., 1926). Title 46 U.S.C.A., Section 713 defines a "seaman" as "every person (apprentices excepted) who shall be employe......
-
Frazie v. Orleans Dredging Co
... ... v. Anelich, 298 U.S. 110, 80 L.Ed. 1075; Hunt v ... U.S. 17 F.Supp. 578; United Dredging Co. v ... Lindberg, [182 Miss. 195] 18 F.2d 453; Fuentes ... v. Gulf Coast Dredging ... 1135; Saylor ... v. Taylor, 77 F. 476; The Hurricane, 2 F.2d 70, 9 F.2d ... 396; City of Los Angeles v. United Dredging Co., 14 ... F.2d 364; The Showboat, 47 F.2d 286; The Ark, 17 ... ...
-
Norton v. Warner Co
...Cass, Fed.Cas.No. 5,307; Seabrook v. Raft, D.C., 40 F. 596; In re Eastern Dredging Co., D.C., 138 F. 942; City of Los Angeles v. United Dredging Co., 9 Cir., 14 F.2d 364; The Robert W. Parsons, 191 U.S. 17, 30, 24 S.Ct. 8, 12, 48 L.Ed. 73; Ellis v. United States, 206 U.S. 246, 259, 27 S.Ct.......
-
Sims v. Marine Catering Service, Inc.
...776, 75 A.L.R. 2d 1296, which have been held to be vessels: a large dredging barge without motive power, City of Los Angeles v. United Dredging Company, 9 Cir. 1926, 14 F.2d 364, Kibadeaux v. Standard Dredging Company, 5 Cir. 1936, 81 F.2d 670; a craft on which cargo was stored during the w......