Coryell v. Phipps

Decision Date09 June 1942
Docket NumberNo. 10185.,10185.
Citation128 F.2d 702
PartiesCORYELL et al. v. PHIPPS et al.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

David W. Dyer, of Miami, Fla., and T. Catesby Jones and Leonard J. Matteson, both of New York City, for appellants.

Scott M. Loftin, Jas. E. Calkins, Robert H. Anderson, and Paul R. Scott, and Fred Botts, all of Miami, Fla., and Eugene Underwood, of New York City, for appellees.

Before SIBLEY, HOLMES, and McCORD, Circuit Judges.

HOLMES, Circuit Judge.

The houseboat Seminole, while lying in dead storage in the yacht basin owned and operated by George Pilkington at Fort Lauderdale, Florida, caught fire following an explosion in her engine room. The fire spread to other vessels stored in the basin, and damaged or destroyed more than forty of them. Appellants, who were owners of vessels to which the fire spread, filed this libel against John S. Phipps (by whom the Seminole was alleged to be owned, operated, or controlled) and Pilkington (as bailee of the vessels in the basin) to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by reason of the negligence of said defendants.

After a thorough trial in the court below, judgment was entered dismissing the libel as to both defendants. On this appeal therefrom, appellants disregard the respondent Pilkington, and concentrate their efforts upon reversing the judgment as to Phipps. It is contended that Phipps should have been held liable because, although the legal title to the houseboat was in the Seminole Boat Company, a Delaware corporation, the evidence clearly showed that Phipps was the actual owner and was in control and operation of the vessel, and that his negligent care of her, through his servants, was the proximate cause of the fire.

In 1915 Phipps acquired a one-half interest in the Seminole by purchase from his brother. In 1927 the boat was completely overhauled, and in 1928 the Phipps brothers organized the Seminole Boat Company, to which the boat was transferred in furtherance of the corporate purpose to enter the charter business for profit. The stockholders of the corporation held meetings, elected officers, kept minutes; and the corporation, through its duly elected officers, promptly took appropriate steps to launch the Seminole upon her career as a charter vessel. In 1929 and 1930 she was chartered several times, but she was too large and expensive to be operated successfully as a charter vessel during the following years of severe economic depression. As a consequence, she spent much of the time in dead storage at Pilkington's pier, and was listed for sale in Miami in 1935.

On March 23, 1935, H. C. Phipps sold his stock in the Seminole Boat Company to his sister, and, after the charter season was over in April, 1935, the two stockholders took the Seminole on a fishing trip to the Florida Keys. After the cruise the Seminole was once more moved to Pilkington's, where she was prepared for storage by the crew and was turned over to Pilkington on April 15, 1935. It is undisputed that the vessel had been examined and pronounced fit by an experienced ship surveyor in February, 1935; that she developed no flaws during the cruise or prior to reaching Pilkington's; that the crew left her gasoline valves closed, her electric switches open, her gas tanks registering empty, and her bilges clean and free of gasoline or gasoline vapor; and that she was repeatedly examined by competent men between April 15 and June 24, 1935, who discovered nothing wrong with her. At all times after the title to the Seminole was transferred to the corporation her movements were directed by the officers of the corporation, she was manned by a crew employed by those officers, and all business dealings in connection with her operation and management were conducted by those officers.

On June 24, 1935, an officer of the Seminole Boat Company employed R. C. Abel to go to Pilkington's to inspect the Seminole and to bring back for storage some fishing gear that was on her. Abel obtained the keys to the boat from Pilkington, and boarded her in company with a man named Thomas. Abel entered the engine room through its window, and crossed to the main switchboard, where he struck a match and proceeded to close several of the switches. As he closed the last switch, sparks emanated from a point approximately a foot to his left, and an explosion occurred followed by the fire that caused the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • DeWitt Truck Brokers, Inc. v. W. Ray Flemming Fruit Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • 13 Mayo 1976
    ...the burden of establishing a basis for the disregard of the corporate fiction rests on the party asserting such claim. Coryell v. Phipps (5th Cir. 1942), 128 F.2d 702, 704, aff., 317 U.S. 406, 63 S.Ct. 291, 87 L.Ed. 363 (1943); Aamco Automatic Transmissions, Inc. v. Tayloe (E.D.Pa.1973), 36......
  • Zubik v. Zubik
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • 29 Septiembre 1967
    ...designed to execute illegitimate purposes in abuse of the corporate fiction and the immunity that it carries * * *." Coryell v. Phipps, 128 F.2d 702, 704 (5th Cir. 1942) aff'd on other grounds, 317 U.S. 406, 63 S.Ct. 291, 87 L.Ed. 363 (1943); In re Sheridan's Petition, 226 F.Supp. 136, 139 ......
  • American Tobacco Company v. Goulandris
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 9 Abril 1959
    ...the evidence does not support a conclusion that "Greek Line" should be disregarded as a separate corporate entity, (Cf. Coryell v. Phipps, 5 Cir., 1942, 128 F.2d 702; Melmay, D.C.C.Z., 1932 A.M.C. 1396; Shelton Holding Corp. v. 150 East Forty-eight St. Corp., 1934, 264 N.Y. 339, 191 N.E. 8.......
  • Saskatchewan Government Ins. Office v. Spot Pack, 16102.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 14 Marzo 1957
    ...450, 76 L.Ed. 903, 1932 A.M.C. 503; Coryell v. Phipps, 317 U.S. 406, 63 S.Ct. 291, 87 L.Ed. 363, 1943 A.M.C. 18, affirming 5 Cir., 128 F. 2d 702, 1942 A.M.C. 906. 5 "This insurance also specially to cover (subject to the Average Warranty) loss of or damage to the subject matter insured dire......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT