Coffin v. The Progresso or Wells City
| Decision Date | 21 May 1891 |
| Citation | 46 F. 292 |
| Parties | THE PROGRESSO. [1] v. THE PROGRESSO OR WELLS CITY. COFFIN |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
James Parker, for claimant.
E. G Benedict, for libelant.
This is an action in rem to enforce a lien for mate's wages against the steamer formerly known as the 'Wells City,' now known as the 'Progresso.' It is defended with the object, it is understood, of obtaining a decision upon a question of admiralty jurisdiction. The defense set up in the answer is that the steamer, while a British vessel registered under the name of 'Wells City,' was sunk in the harbor of New York, and was abandoned by her owner, and her register as a British vessel duly closed; that she was raised by the underwriters, and sold to the claimant, with the purpose to procure for her a register as a vessel of the United States, under the name 'Progresso;' that at the time of hiring the libelant the vessel had no name or purpose as a vessel, and was not a vessel in the sense that she could have either officers or mariners, nor could either officers or mariners be shipped or hired as such on board of said hull; that when, on November 28th, the libelant was placed in charge of said hull, it was with the understanding that when said bull should be documented, and not until then, the libelant should be shipped as mate; wherefore it is denied that his is a cause of contract civil and maritime, or that it is a case within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States. The proofs show that at the time of the rendition of the services in question the vessel was afloat in the Atlantic basin, undergoing repairs preparatory to a voyage to sea that she had no American register, and was not in any way documented as an American vessel; and it is assumed, although not proved, that her British register had been closed. Up to the 25th day of November, one Captain McArthur was in charge of the ship, and was to go as first mate of the ship when she obtained her papers. On the 25th of November, McArthur fell into the hold and was killed. On the 28th of November the libelant was employed by the owner of the ship in McArthur's place. Afterwards a master of the ship was appointed by the name of Faircloth, and under him the libelant served until December 17th, when, owing to a disagreement with Faircloth, the libelant's employment was terminated by mutual consent. Upon the evidence it is not open to the claimant to deny that the libelant served on board the ship in the capacity of mate; for in a written note dated December 17, 1887, the claimant said to the libelant 'You had better resign your position,'-- a phrase that would not have been addressed to a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McRae v. Bowers Dredging Co.
...F. 258; Seabrook v. Raft of Railroad Cross-Ties, 40 F. 596; Bywater v. Raft of Piles, 42 F. 917; The City of Pittsburgh, 45 F. 699; The Progresso, 46 F. 292; The Louis, 48 F. 313; The Wilmington, 48 F. 566; Stebbins v. Five Mud Scows, 50 F. 227; Id., 12 C.C.A. 359; 64 F. 495; The Atlantic, ......
-
United States v. Lindgren
...not to be denied the status of seamen and the benefit of the act merely because the vessel is not commissioned at the time. See The Progresso (D. C.) 46 F. 292; The William Leishear (D. C.) 21 F.(2d) 862. In this case the application of the act happens not to be beneficial to the representa......
-
The George W. Elder
... ... Hardy et al. v ... Ruggles, Fed. Cas. No. 6,062; The Progresso (D.C.) 46 F ... 292; The Marion S. Harris, 85 F. 798, 29 C.C.A. 428; The ... to various mechanics of the city of Portland for the ... performing of such work.' ... The ... ...
-
The George W. Elder
...not another; nay, though she hath been so often repaired that there remains not one stick of the original fabric.' In the case of The Progresso (D.C.) 46 F. 292, the facts were The steamer in question, while a British vessel registered under the name of 'Wells City,' sank in the harbor of N......