Haller v. Fox
| Decision Date | 25 July 1892 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington |
| Parties | HALLER v. FOX et al. |
Burke Shepard & Woods, for libelant.
James Hamilton Lewis, for respondents.
On September 3, 1891, the defendant Fox hired the steamboat Mary F. Perley for a term of one year, and with her owner, the libelant, executed a contract in writing, whereby they stipulated that said steamboat should during said term be employed in carrying passengers and freight upon the waters of Puget sound, the Straits of Juan de Fuca, and their tributaries; that the charterer should navigate, man, and control her, and bear all expenses incident to navigating her and for supplies, insurance, and repairs, and keep her bills paid so as to prevent liens from attaching, and pay said owner for the use of said steamboat $130 per month, and at the end of said term deliver her again to said owner, or, in case of her loss or destruction, pay him the sum of $8,000. To secure performance on his part of the conditions of said contract, said Fox, as principal, with his codefendants as sureties, gave to the libelant a bond in the penal sum of $8,000, and this suit is brought upon said bond to recover damages in the sum of $5,153.45, with interest. The libel charges that by reason of said Fox having absconded without having paid for the use of said steamboat according to said contract, leaving her in the possession of other parties, and leaving unpaid bills and demands for supplies furnished and services rendered, and for expenses and charges incident to the use and navigation of said steamboat; and that the libelant was compelled to pay the same, with the fees and costs of a suit in rem, brought against her to enforce liens therefor, in order to recover possession of said steamboat and clear her of liens. The sureties on said bond have appeared and filed exceptions to be libel, alleging that the court is without jurisdiction, for that the subject-matter of the suit is not cognizable in a court of admiralty.
The bond in suit is to be construed as if it contained all the promises and conditions of the contract between the libelant and Fox. By this the respondents assured the libelant that their principal would do and perform the things specified in said contract, and obligated themselves to pay whatever damages should result from any failure on his part. This suit, therefore, is founded upon a contract relating directly to the employment, navigation, supplying, repairing insurance, and possession of a ship. Contracts touching these several matters are subjects of admiralty jurisdiction in this country. De Lovio v. Boit, 2 Gall. 298; The Tilton, 5 Mason, 465; The Sloop Mary, 1 Paine, 673; The Smilax, 2 Pet.Adm. 295; The Seneca, Gilp. 10; Insurance Co. v. Dunham, 11 Wall. 1; The Lottawanna, (Rodd v Heartt,) 21 Wall. 558, 589; The Windermere, 2 F. 622; The Canada, 7 F. 123, 7 Sawy. 178; Coast Wrecking Co. v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 7 Fed.Rep. 242; The Building Star, 9 F. 524; Maury v. Culliford, 10 F. 391; The Vidal Sala, 12 F. 211; The San Fernando, Id. 342; The Waubaushene, 22 F. 115; The Alberto, 24...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Folksamerica Reinsurance v. Clean Water, Ny
...of [a] charter claim is not a maritime contract," Fednav, Ltd. v. Isoramar, S.A., 925 F.2d 599, 601 (2d Cir.1991). But see Haller v. Fox, 51 F. 298 (W.D.Wash.1892). As we can see no principled distinction between the breach of the maritime contract of charter and the breach of maritime cont......
-
Aqua-Marine Constructors, Inc. v. Banks
...F.Supp. 1092, 1093 (D.Conn.1976) (ruling that guarantee of performance of maritime contract was enforceable in admiralty); Haller v. Fox, 51 F. 298 (D.Wash.1892) (exercising admiralty jurisdiction over action by shipowner against charterer's surety for unpaid charter hire and for unpaid ser......
-
Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. Bonnasse
...principal's maritime obligation, but merely to pay a sum of money in case of his default. This result is perhaps not inevitable. Haller v. Fox (D. C.) 51 F. 298. Fox v. Patton (D. C.) 22 F. 746, was the case of a promise to pay damages upon the breach of the ship's obligation after the brea......
-
Pacific Surety Co. v. Leatham & Smith Towing & Wrecking Co.
... ... Patton (D.C.) 27 F. 746 and The Harvey and Henry, 30 ... C.C.A. 330, 86 F. 656 ... Thus ... viewing the contract of the surety, we are satisfied that it ... is not maritime in its nature, and not within the admiralty ... jurisdiction, although it appears in the case of Haller ... v. Fox (D.C.) 51 F. 298, that Judge Hanford ruled ... otherwise in respect of like subject-matter. The opinion ... referred to is entitled to great weight, and has been ... carefully considered, but we are constrained to the belief ... that it is not in harmony with the authorities ... ...