In re Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co.

• Decision Date: 14 November 1917
• Docket Number: 776.
• Citation: 250 F. 916
• Parties: In re GREAT LAKES Dredge & DOCK CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

250 F. 916

In re GREAT LAKES Dredge & DOCK CO.

No. 776.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

November 14, 1917

Edward S. Dodge, of Boston, Mass., and Benjamin Thompson, of Portland, Me., for Eastern S.S. Corporations.

MORTON District Judge.

As to the damage claimant's motion to amend:

It does not appear that the petitioner was in any way misled in the presentation of its case by the statement of the amount of damages contained in the libel, nor that it has in any way altered its position in reliance thereon. The motion to amend is allowed. The Minnetonka, 145 F. 509, 514, 77 C.C.A. 217 (C.C.A.2d Cir.); The Charles Morgan, 115 U.S. 69, 75, 5 Sup.Ct. 1172, 29 L.Ed. 316.

As to the exceptions to the commissioner's report:

I have carefully considered the numerous exceptions taken by both parties to the commissioner's report and am of opinion that none of them is well founded. They are each and all overruled.

As to interest:

The allowance of interest in cases of this character is said to rest in the discretion of the court. The Albert Dumois, 177 U.S. 240, 255, 20 Sup.Ct. 595, 44 L.Ed. 751; The Scotland 118 U.S. 507, 518, 6 Sup.Ct. 1174, 30 L.Ed. 153; The Maggie J. Smith, 123 U.S. 349, 356, 8 Sup.Ct. 159, 31 L.Ed. 175; Redfield v. Ystalyfera Iron Co., 110 U.S. 174, 176 3 Sup.Ct. 570, 28 L.Ed. 109. The commissioner at first included interest in his award, but subsequently, on objection by the petitioner, struck out that item, upon the ground that he was not authorized to pass on the allowance of interest. The facts are all before the court, being contained in the opinion dated March 31, 1916, and in the commissioner's report, and it is a pure question of law whether interest should or should not be allowed. The case presents, so far as I can see, no special circumstances affecting the matter either way. The general rule should be ascertained and applied.

In cases of collision, the great weight of authority is that interest on the damages eventually awarded should be computed from the date of the collision, or from the dates when payments for the necessary repairs were actually made.

"Then I find that the settled law of the court of admiralty is that interest is as much payable in cases of collision as if there had been a contract to pay interest, and that the damages are there held to be due at the date of the collision, and that interest is given from that time." Wood, Vice Chancellor, in Straker v. Hartland, 2 H. & M. 570 575.

"The referee found that the plaintiff was entitled to recover as his damages the cost of repairing the schooner, and her rental value while she was undergoing repairs, and interest upon both items. It is now claimed that he erred in allowing interest upon the latter item. There was no error. Having ascertained what plaintiff's damage was, the referee properly allowed interest on the amount thereof from the time plaintiff became entitled to payment of the same. Without the interest plaintiff would not have recovered full indemnity." Earl, C., Mailler v. Express Propeller Line, 61 N.Y. 312, 316.

"Interest is allowed in the admiralty upon damages for collision, and other courts have...