In re Hand

Citation109 A. 692
PartiesIn re HAND. Appeal of BOARD OF COM'RS OF NAVIGATION.
Decision Date02 February 1920
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
109 A. 692

In re HAND.
Appeal of BOARD OF COM'RS OF NAVIGATION.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Feb. 2, 1920.


109 A. 693

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County.

Howard S. Hand, a pilot, appealed to the court of common pleas from an order of the Board of Commissioners of Navigation suspending him until he should return amount of fees collected, which the Board found to be excessive. From a judgment of the court of common pleas, setting aside the decision, the Board appeals. Reversed, and order of Board of Commissioners reinstated and affirmed.

Argued before BROWN, C. J., and MOSCHZISKER, FRAZER, WALLING, SIMPSON, and KEPHART, JJ.

Joseph L. Kun, of Philadelphia, for appellant.

John F. Lewis, of Philadelphia, for appellee.

SIMPSON, J. The Norwegian bark Skansen 1, being about to leave the port of Philadelphia, applied for a licensed pilot. In response thereto Howard S. Hand, the appellee, was sent; but, when he and the master reached the vessel, the mate in charge thereof reported that 10 of the crew had deserted, leaving it insufficiently manned for its voyage. Appellee then stated the bark could do one of two things, retain him, upon paying $3 a day, or dismiss him, upon paying the full pilotage of $110. The agent elected to pay the $3 a day, and for 14 days the pilot reported to the agent's office as ready for duty. At the expiration of this time, the vessel not having yet obtained a sufficient crew, the pilot was notified he need not further hold himself in attendance thereupon. He then demanded $42 for detention, in accordance with the above arrangement, and the full pilotage of $110 in addition, threatening to libel the vessel if they were not paid, whereupon they were paid, under an agreement that it should be "without prejudice to the captain's contention that a charge for outward pilotage, when the vessel leaves, shall not be made."

Subsequently, a full crew having been obtained, appellee was again sent to pilot the vessel. He conducted it down the river and bay and out to sea, and for so doing presented a second bill for $110, again threatening to libel the vessel if it was not forthwith paid. It was therefore approved by the captain under protest, and was paid by the agent under protest. Later a complaint was lodged with the board of commissioners of navigation, alleging the pilot was not entitled to two pilotages. A hearing was had, at which both sides were represented, resulting in the board finding the facts above set...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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