Marine Chartering Co. v. Schirmer Stevedoring Co.

• Decision Date: 16 January 1961
• Docket Number: No. 38358.,38358.
• Parties: MARINE CHARTERING CO., Inc., a corporation, Plaintiff, v. SCHIRMER STEVEDORING COMPANY, Ltd., a corporation, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of California

194 F. Supp. 488

MARINE CHARTERING CO., Inc., a corporation, Plaintiff, v. SCHIRMER STEVEDORING COMPANY, Ltd., a corporation, et al., Defendants.

No. 38358.

United States District Court N. D. California, S. D.

January 16, 1961.

Graham, James & Rolph, San Francisco, Cal., for Marine Chartering Co., Inc.

Lillick, Geary, Wheat, Adams & Charles, San Francisco, Cal., for Schirmer Stevedoring Co., Ltd.

John H. Black and Robert C. Taylor, San Francisco, Cal., for Seaboard Stevedoring Corp.

Dorr, Cooper & Hays, San Francisco, Cal., for William Dimond & Co., and Brady Hamilton Stevedoring Co.

McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen, San Francisco, Cal., for N. J. Goulandris, Ltd. and Sociedad De Navegacion Albion, S. A.

Thacher, Jones, Casey & Ball, San Francisco, Cal., for Parr-Richmond Terminal Co. Wallace, Garrison, Norton & Ray, San Francisco, Cal., for Financiera Peruana, S. A.

Hall, Henry, Oliver & McReavy, San Francisco, Cal., for Port of Seattle.

WOLLENBERG, District Judge.

This is a suit under the Federal Interpleader Act (28 U.S.C. §§ 1335, 1397, 2361). Plaintiff Marine Chartering Co., Inc., has deposited $48,337.61 into court as representing the amount of freight payable by it as charterer of the vessel SS Areti S for one voyage. In its complaint the plaintiff alleges that adverse and conflicting claims to this freight money have been asserted by various claimants, nine of whom have appeared as defendants in this action. The plaintiff asks the court to determine who is entitled to payment, and seeks to be dismissed with an allowance of costs and attorneys fees from the funds deposited.

Many of the facts connected with the charter voyage were agreed by the parties in stipulations filed before trial. Essentially the controversy arose out of the insolvency of Naviera Andes Peruana S. A. ("Navandes"), a company with head offices in Lima, Peru, which on October 27, 1958, time chartered the Areti S from the vessel's owners ("Goulandris"). As time charterer, Navandes in turn sub-chartered the vessel to plaintiff under a charter party dated February 19, 1959, covering one voyage from the Pacific Coast to ports in the Caribbean Sea. In late May, 1959, the vessel was delivered under the voyage charter in British Columbia, where she commenced to load cargoes of wheat and lumber booked by the plaintiff. On June 10, 1959, before loading had been completed, the owners withdrew the vessel from Navandes upon the latter's failure to pay the hire then due under the basic time charter. By a new agreement dated June 10, 1959, Goulandris agreed directly with the plaintiff to complete the voyage to the Caribbean.

The voyage was completed by the vessel's owners, and the $48,337.61 deposited in court by the plaintiff represents the full amount of freight payable as provided in the agreement of June 10, 1959. Under that agreement, as well as under the provisions of the original voyage charter between the plaintiff and Navandes, freights were to be computed in accordance with the amount of cargo loaded, with deductions for various items of credit and expense arising in connection with the voyage. The court finds, pursuant to stipulation of the parties, that the plaintiff has accurately computed the $48,337.61 in freight payable under the agreement of June 10, 1959, the same amount that would have been payable under the voyage charter of February 19, 1959.

The owners claim the entire freight by virtue of their performance of the agreement of June 10, 1959. Defendant Financiera Peruana, S. A. ("Financiera") claims $45,000 of the amount deposited as assignee of freights payable to Navandes under the voyage charter of February 19, 1959. The seven remaining defendants, referred to collectively as the "stevedore claimants", differ among themselves as to the relative priority of their claims, but jointly assert that they are entitled to all freights as attaching creditors of Navandes, and by virtue of maritime liens in their favor for stevedoring and terminal services furnished to the Areti S and other vessels time chartered by Navandes. All of these services were furnished prior to commencement of the voyage in question, and the stevedore claimants do not contend that they were ordered by the plaintiff or Goulandris. The stevedore claimants attack the validity of the alleged assignment to Financiera, and likewise challenge the validity of the June 10, 1959 agreement between the plaintiff and Goulandris.

The record shows that the June 10th agreement was made after the vessel was withdrawn from time charter to Navandes. It is not disputed that Navandes failed to pay the installment of charter hire due Goulandris on that date. The evidence is that Navandes was having difficulty meeting its financial obligations during May of 1959, and that by the first week in June it had closed its offices in Lima and its agent at San Francisco had resigned. When the installment of time charter hire falling due on June 10th was not paid, the owners were entitled to withdraw their vessel from Navandes and recharter it directly to the plaintiff.

The stevedore claimants seize upon a delay in loading the vessel at British Columbia, contending that this delay was purposely caused by the...