Gowanus Storage Co., Inc. v. United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation

• Decision Date: 21 March 1921
• Citation: 271 F. 528
• Parties: GOWANUS STORAGE CO., Inc., v. UNITED STATES SHIPPING BOARD EMERGENCY FLEET CORPORATION.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

271 F. 528

GOWANUS STORAGE CO., Inc., v. UNITED STATES SHIPPING BOARD EMERGENCY FLEET CORPORATION.

United States District Court, E.D. New York.

March 21, 1921

Foley &amp Martin, of New York City, for libelant.

Leroy W. Ross, U.S. Atty., of Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondent.

GARVIN District Judge.

At the close of the trial the court announced that on the facts libelant had established its cause of action by a preponderance of evidence. The respondent, by timely objection, questioned the jurisdiction of the court.

The libel was filed against the United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation, and alleges that the libelant was in possession of a certain dock and pier at the foot of Twentieth and Twenty-First streets in the borough of Brooklyn, city of New York, as lessee; that because of the manner in which the steamship Western Belle, in possession and control of and operated by the respondent, was moored in Gowanus Bay, libelant was deprived of the rent and use of its said dock from February 4 to February 10, 1920, was prevented from carrying out a contract which it had with the steamship Mermoquowa and respondent, and from arranging for storing and handling the cargo of the latter vessel under said contract. The Mermoquowa had arranged to dock at the libelant's pier, and was unable to do so because of the position of the Western Belle. The libelant had made a contract with the steamship Mermoquowa and respondent, whereby the steamship and the respondent agreed with the libelant to take and use said pier from and after February 4th, for the purpose of discharging the cargo of the steamship, at a rental of $100 a day for the dock, with $100 additional per day for the use of the shed on the said pier or dock. The agreement further provided for the procurement of storage by the libelant of 18,000 bales of cork wood, the cargo of the vessel, for which libelant was to receive 35 cents a bale. The damage sustained by the libelant is represented by the benefit and profit which it would have obtained under the agreement with the steamship Mermoquowa aforesaid.

The respondent suggests that, in determining whether an action of this character is within the jurisdiction of admiralty, the court must first consider the agreement between the libelant and the Mermoquowa and its owners, in order to ascertain if it was of such a nature that a court of admiralty would have jurisdiction of an action for a breach thereof, and refers to authorities which hold that admiralty has no jurisdiction over a cause of action that is only partly maritime in character. The Belfast, 7 Wall. 637, 19 L.Ed. 266; The Pennsylvania, 154 F. 9, 83 C.C.A. 139; Plummer v. Webb, 4 Mason, 380, Fed. Cas. No. 11233.

The libelant urges that the obstruction of the channel of the waters of Gowanus Bay by the Western Belle was unlawful, and that where the owner of a dock fronting on navigable waters sustains injury by reason of an obstruction in such navigable waters he may recover damages from him who commits the wrongful act, citing Rivers and Harbors Act, Sec. 15, 30 Stat. 1152 (Comp. St. Sec. 9920), The Grand Manan (D.C.) 208 F. 583, The Pocohuntas (D.C.) 217 F. 135, and other authorities. This may be quite true, but it does not follow that an admiralty court has jurisdiction, although libelant would undoubtedly have a cause of action at common law.

The following cases upon which libelant relies to...