Kane v. Motor Vessel Leda, 73-1782.
| Decision Date | 06 May 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 73-1782.,73-1782. |
| Citation | 1974 AMC 425,491 F.2d 899 |
| Parties | Charles B. KANE, d/b/a Kane's Diesel & Truck Repair, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MOTOR VESSEL LEDA, her engines, etc., et al., Defendants-Appellees, Westside Auto Supply, Inc. and American Marine & Equipment Co., Inc., Intervenors. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Louis R. Koerner, Jr., New Orleans, La., for plaintiff-appellant.
Rene S. Paysse, Robert B. Sutherlin, Kenneth J. Berke, New Orleans, La., for defendants-appellees.
David R. Normann, Jack J. Charbonnet, New Orleans, La., for Westside Auto Supply.
Leopold Stahl, New Orleans, La., for American Marine & Equip. Co., Inc.
Before DYER, MORGAN and RONEY, Circuit Judges.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied May 6, 1974.
In this admiralty action the district court found that Kane, who furnished work and materials to the vessel M/V LEDA, at the request of the charterer, was not entitled to a maritime lien on the vessel. Judgment was entered against the owner, however, for unjust enrichment damages.
The trial court made extensive findings of fact.1 It found that the charterer was not "a person authorized by the owner" to bind the vessel for the labor and materials furnished by Kane and that the latter did not, therefore, have a maritime lien on the vessel. 46 U.S.C.A. § 971. But the court further found that Kane had an admiralty claim for unjust enrichment in personam against Leda Towing Company, Inc., the owner. The findings are not clearly erroneous. McAllister v. United States, 1954, 348 U.S. 19, 75 S.Ct. 6, 99 L.Ed. 20. On the contrary, the record fully supports these findings.
By a plethora of arguments based on Louisiana law, Kane argues that an admiralty court should apply state law to create a lien on the vessel or to revoke the subsequent sale of the vessel. To do this, as the district court properly held, would be destructive of the principle of uniformity in federal maritime law. Moreover, to subordinate the maritime law to Louisiana law, as Kane argues, would defeat the provisions of 46 U.S.C.A. § 973.
By our disposition of this federal action, we do not, of course, intimate any views on the merits of claims Kane may have under state law.
We have considered the other points on appeal urged by Kane and find them to be without merit.
Affirmed.
1 On March 14, 1972, full findings of fact and conclusions of law were made. On October 27, 1972, further...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Kidney Patients Ass'n v. Sullivan
...County, Arkansas, 481 F.2d 417, 419-20 (8th Cir.1973); Kane v. Motor Vessel Leda, 355 F.Supp. 796, 801-05 (E.D.La.1972), aff'd, 491 F.2d 899 (5th Cir.1974). Moreover, in both Arkadelphia and Mitchell the restitution was set in the context of an exchange (in Arkadelphia, money in exchange fo......
-
MARMAC, LLC v. InterMoor, Inc.
...(considering a claim for maritime trespass for leaving a barge tied to a dock without consent).136 See, e.g. , Kane v. Motor Vessel Leda , 491 F.2d 899, 900 (5th Cir. 1974).137 Kane v. Motor Vessel Leda , 355 F. Supp. 796, 803 (E.D. La. 1972) (quoting Nicholas, Unjustified Enrichment in the......
-
Lieblong v. Abella
...Miss. v. The Seneca, E.D. La. 1960, 179 F. Supp. 847. Kane v. Motor Vessel Leda, 355 F. Supp. 796, 800 (E.D. La. 1972), aff'd , 491 F.2d 899 (5th Cir. 1974).4 The option in the Agreement relates to the passing of the title of the Talisker, therefore Hawai‘i law applies. Under Hawai‘i state ......
-
ING Bank N.V. v. Temara
...not give rise to a lien and are instead purely in personam . Kane v. Motor Vessel Leda , 355 F.Supp. 796, 801 (E.D.La.1972), aff'd 491 F.2d 899 (5th Cir.1974). CEPSA has not alleged any in personam claim against the TEMARA's owner or charterer, and instead casts its unjust enrichment theory......