Gleason v. Duffy
| Decision Date | 06 May 1902 |
| Docket Number | 840. |
| Citation | 116 F. 298 |
| Parties | GLEASON et al. v. DUFFY et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Wm. V Rooker, for appellants.
Chas L. Jewett, for appellees.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Indiana. In Admiralty.
The appellant John Gleason, one of the crew of the steamboat Transit, on the 22d day of December, 1896, received an injury through a collision between the Transit and tugboat Aid upon the Ohio river, and at the port of Louisville. On May 5 1897, he brought a common-law action in the circuit court for the county of Clark, Ind., against Duffy and Hoffman, the appellees, owners of the steam tugboat Aid, to recover damages therefor. The claimant appeared to that action, denied liability, and also answered, claiming the benefit of the limitation of liability under the statutes of the United States. On June 24, 1899, judgment in that cause was rendered against Duffy and Hoffman for $2,000, with costs; the claim for limitation of liability being refused and rejected by the court. They appealed therefrom to the appellate court for the state of Indiana, giving bond, with surety, conditioned that they should prosecute their appeal, and abide by and pay the judgment and costs which might be rendered and affirmed against them by the appellate court. On November 27, 1900, the judgment of the circuit court for the county of Clark was by the appellate court in all things affirmed, 58 N.E. 729. The bond operated as a supersedeas. Thereafter, on the 23d of January, 1901, Duffy and Hoffman filed their petition in the district court of the United States for the district of Indiana against Gleason to limit their liability under the act of congress; setting forth the facts stated, and asserting, among other things, that the injury was not caused by the negligence of the petitioners, who were not present at the time, and occurred without their privity or knowledge, and without fault or negligence on their part; that the Aid is a vessel of eight tons burthen, duly enrolled according to law in the office of the supervising inspector of steamboats of the United States for the Sixth supervising district, which includes the ports of Jeffersonville, in the state of Indiana, and Louisville, in the state of Kentucky, and the waters of the Ohio river; that the vessel is now in the port of Jeffersonville, in the district of Indiana, and within the jurisdiction of the district court, and is engaged in plying between that port and the port of Louisville and adjacent places, and is used as a tug and tow boat in interstate commerce upon the Ohio river; that they interposed in the state court to contest their liability and the liability of the steamboat, and desired at all times to claim the benefit of the limitation of liability provided for in sections 4282 and 4289 of the Revised Statutes, as amended; that the claim for damages made by Gleason, and the judgment recovered and affirmed, exceed in amount the value of the steam tugboat Aid at the time of the accident, and exceed the several interests of the petitioners therein; and charges that the vessel at the time had no freight, and her value, including tackle, apparel, and furniture, did not exceed the sum of $600. The petition calls for an appraisement of the value of the interest of the petitioners in the steamboat; that they be permitted to pay the amount into court, and that Gleason, Douglas, and Phipps,-- the latter two of whom are charged to have, as attorneys, a lien upon the judgment,-- may be cited to answer, and that upon such appraisement, and payment into court of the value, the amount may be divided among the respondents in proportion of their interests; and that the respondents be severally enjoined from prosecuting and collecting the judgment in the state courts by suit upon the bond or otherwise. Thereafter, on January 31, 1901, Gleason brought his action in the circuit court for the county of Clark, Ind., against Duffy and Hoffman, and against Howard, the surety, to enforce the penalty of the appeal bond, which fact was brought to the attention of the court by an amendment to the petition. The said Gleason answered to the petition, reciting that the petitioners should be held estopped by the judgment of the state court from further contesting their liability and the liability of the vessel, and from asserting any claim on their part to the benefit of limitation of liability of vessel owners as provided by statute, and asserted their failure to take appropriate proceedings for the limitation of liability during the progress of the cause in the state court. He also challenged the jurisdiction of the admiralty court upon the ground that the matters contained in the libel were not matters of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, but not otherwise contesting the facts averred. The answers of Douglas and Phipps asserted a lien upon the judgment, and challenged the jurisdiction of the court. Exceptions were filed to the answer of Gleason for insufficiency, which exceptions were sustained by the court. Afterwards, on July 11, 1901, Gleason electing to stand upon this answer and declining to make further answer, the court decreed for the petitioners; finding the value of the steam tugboat Aid at the time of the accident to be $650; that the amount has been duly paid into court by the petitioners; and declared and limited the liability of the owners to the sum of $650; and declared that such payment into court be in full compensation of their limited liability; and that they were discharged from all other of further liability; perpetually enjoined and restrained the appellants from bringing or prosecuting any suit or from collecting any judgment against Duffy and Hoffman for the injury suffered by Gleason, and from prosecuting the suit upon the appeal bond; and directed that the lien of the attorneys follow the proceeds into the registry of the court, reserving to the appellants the right to determine their respective liens upon the proceeds as between themselves. From this decree the appeal is prosecuted.
Before JENKINS and GROSSCUP, Circuit Judges.
JENKINS Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).
By the general maritime law of Europe the liability of owners for the wrongful acts of the master is limited to their interest in the ship, and by abandoning the ship and freight to the creditor they discharge themselves from all personal liability. The Rebecca, 1 Ware, 188, Fed. Cas. No. 11,619. The rule was for the encouragement of shipping, and was adopted in this country by Rev. St. Secs. 4282-4287. The rule was limited to seagoing vessels. The act of 1886 (24 Stat. c. 421, § 4) extended the rule to all vessels used on lakes or rivers or in inland navigation. Section 4283, Rev. St., provides that 'the liability of the owner of any vessel for * * * any loss, damage or injury by collision, or for any act, matter or thing, loss, damage, or forfeiture done, occasioned or incurred without the privity or knowledge of such owner or owners, shall in no case exceed the amount or value of the interest of such owner in such vessel and her freight then pending. ' This statute is an express limitation upon the liability of the owner, and was designed 'to modify the shipowners' common-law liability for everything but the act of God and the king's enemies. ' Walker v. Transportation Co., 3 Wall. 150, 18 L.Ed. 172. The supreme court adopted rules of practice to effectuate the purpose of the statute. 13 Wall. xii, 20 L.Ed. 926. It is therein provided with respect to the court in which the proceedings may be had as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Larsen v. Northland Transp Co the Norco
...266 U.S. 355, 45 S.Ct. 114, 69 L.Ed. 324; The S. A. McCaulley (D.C.) 99 F. 302; In re Old Dominion S.S. Co. (D.C.) 115 F. 845; Glenson v. Duffy (C.C.A.) 116 F. 298; The Ocean Spray (D.C.) 117 F. 971; In re Starin (D.C.) 124 F. 101; The City of Boston (D.C.) 159 F. 257; The Hoffmans (D.C.) 1......
-
Monongahela River Consol. Coal & Coke Co. v. Hurst
...in personam, is a waiver of the limited liability statute. The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in the case of Gleason v. Duffy, supra, has answered the question in negative. In that case the action for damages was in a state court, and was appealed to the Supreme Court of ......
-
THE NORCO, 7036.
...owner's liability, as provided by federal law. The S. A. McCaulley (D. C.) 99 F. 302; In re Old Dominion (D. C.) 115 F. 845; Gleason v. Duffy (C. C. A. 7) 116 F. 298; The Ocean Spray (D. C. Cal.) 117 F. 971; In re Starin (D. C. N. Y.) 124 F. 101; The City of Boston (D. C. Mass.) 159 F. 257;......
-
THE WC FRANZ
...District Court of competent jurisdiction, provided it was not guilty of laches. In re Slayton, 105 U.S. 451, 26 L.Ed. 1066; Gleason v. Duffy (C.C.A.) 116 F. 298; The Scotland, 105 U.S. 24, 26 L.Ed. Under rule 54 of the Admiralty Rules (28 U.S.C.A. p. 410, following section 723), any Distric......