Payne v. SS Tropic Breeze
| Decision Date | 02 October 1967 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 453-67. |
| Citation | 274 F. Supp. 324 |
| Parties | Richard PAYNE, Winston Baylis, David Campbell, Own V. Gordon, Eric Heslop, Alfred Jarris, Seaton Messam, Leopold Smith, J. Soames, C. L. Wittingham and Derrick Williams, Plaintiffs, v. SS TROPIC BREEZE, her engines, boilers, furniture, apparel, appliances, appurtenances, equipment, etc., Defendant, Tropical Commerce Corporation, Apostolos Samadjapolus, Intervenors. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Nachman, Feldstein, Laffitte & Smith, Gustavo A. Gelpi, San Juan, P. R., for plaintiffs.
Fiddler, Gonzalez & Rodriguez, Roberto Córdova, McConnell, Valdes, Kelley & Sifre, Abelardo Ruiz Suria, O'Neill & Borges, Edward Borges, Hartzell, Fernandez & Novas, San Juan, P. R., for defendant and intervenors.
Apostolos Samadjapolus, master of the SS Tropic Breeze, has petitioned leave of the Court to intervene and assert his claims for wages, travelling expenses and advance made on behalf of the vessel.
The Intervenor, National Western Life Insurance Co., has objected to the intervention of Apostolos Samadjapolus, alleging that under the American Maritime Law the master of a vessel has no lien for wages or travelling expenses. The master alleges that the law of the vessel's flag is controlling and that said law gives him a maritime lien for wages. The objection of National Western Life Insurance brings before the Court the issue of which law applies and whether under the applicable law the master has a lien for wages and travelling expenses. The parties have submitted briefs in support of their respective positions and due deliberation has been had.
In determining this threshold issue, the Court acknowledges the undisputable fact that the SS Tropic Breeze is a vessel of Liberian Registry and flies the flag of that country. Although the master was hired in New York, his contract of employment, that is, the Shipping Articles (Plaintiffs' Exhibit 3), call for the application of Liberian Law. Paragraph 16 of the Shipping Articles provides:
The right to wages arises out of the Articles and this Court is bound to apply the law which the parties contracted for, unless of course, the application of that law would contravene the laws or the public policy of the forum.
In the maritime field wages have long since been classified among those things better left to regulation by the nation of the vessel's flag, on the basis that to do otherwise would completely disrupt foreign commerce. Koukorinis v. S/T Eurypyle, 214 F.Supp. 344, 347 (E.D.Va.1963). The "settled American doctrine" regarding wages and other internal affairs of the vessel was stated by the Supreme Court in Lauritzen v. Larsen, 345 U.S. 571, at p. 585-586, 73 S.Ct. 921, at p. 930, 97 L.Ed. 1254:
"And so by comity it came to be generally understood among civilized nations that all matters of discipline, and all things done on board, which affect only the vessel, or those belonging to her, and did not involve the peace or dignity of the country, or the tranquility of the port, should be left by the local government to be dealt with by the authorities of the nation to which the vessel belonged as the laws of that nation, or the interest of its commerce should require."
American Courts have consistently enforced liens for wages in favor of a master when the laws of the vessel's flag gave the master such a lien. The Estrada Palma, 8 F.2d 103 (E.D. La.1923); The Yarmouth, 1923 A.M.C. 729 (S.D.N.Y.1923). Even when a state statute allows a lien maritime in nature, admiralty will enforce it. The J. E. Rumbell, 148 U.S. 1, 13 S.Ct. 498, 37 L.Ed. 345 (1893). Federal courts have also enforced wage liens in favor of masters when created by state statutes. The Edith, 217 F. 300 (D.C.Wash.1914); The Laurel, 113 F. 373 (D.C.Wash. 1902); Burdine v. Walden, 91 F.2d 321 (5th Cir. 1937). The statutory law of Puerto Rico grants the master such a lien, Title 10 App.L.P.R.A. § 562(6), 566, and this court has enforced it. Prentice v. The Verita, Adm. 1-59, U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico (unreported). The Court can find no impediment in the American Admiralty and Maritime Law to deprive the master of a lien for wages given by the law of the vessel's flag.
In view of the foregoing the Court holds that the Law of the Republic of Liberia is applicable.
Prior to August 18, 1964, the law of Liberia did not give the master of a vessel the protection regarding wages afforded to the crew. Thus, in The Arie H, 1963 A.M.C. 1595 (D.C.Ga. 1963), the master of a Liberian vessel was denied a lien for wages. After that decision the law was amended in April 23, 1964, effective August 18, 1964, and Section 298 was added to Title 22 of the Liberian Code of Laws. Section 298 of Title 22 provides:
"Except as otherwise provided, the Master of a Liberian vessel shall have the same rights in respect to wages, maintenance and cure and repatriation as hereinafter provided in respect of seamen."
Under this section the master has the same rights regarding wages as the crew and among those rights include a lien for wages. Section 336(4) of Title 22 of the Liberian Code of Laws reads as follows:
"Section (4)—The seamen shall have a maritime lien against the vessel for any wages due him under this section."
The wage lien is so jealously guarded by the Liberian Law that an absolute prohibition against agreement forfeiting said lien is established in Title 22, Section 334 of the Liberian Code of Laws.
"No seamen shall by any agreement forfeit his lien upon the ship or be deprived of any remedy for the recovery of wages to which he should otherwise have been entitled; and every stipulation by which any seamen consents to abandon his rights to his wages in the case of the loss of a ship or to abandon any right which he may have obtained in the nature of salvage shall be wholly void and inoperative."
Finally, the wage lien is recognized to have the highest priority by section 113 of Title 22 of the Liberian Code of Laws.
The Liberian law recognizes that the master has a lien for his wages and this Court must enforce it in accordance with the doctrine stated in Lauritzen v. Larsen, supra.
National Western also objects to the master's intervention as regards his claims for travelling expenses allegedly incurred on behalf of the vessel, on the basis that such expenses do not create a lien upon the vessel.
The Court finds that the master travelled to New York for the purpose of seeking the necessary funds to pay the crew, Puerto Rico Drydock and other expenses. Because ship had no funds, the master had to pay for the travelling expenses out of his personal funds. The purpose of his trip was to obtain funds, which were to meet certain operational expenses of the vessel. His failure to travel would have been a violation of the duties imposed on a master by the Liberian law in Section 296 of Title 22 of the Liberian Code of Laws.
The success or lack of success is not the determinative factor. Travelling expenses have been recognized as constituting a lien upon the vessel. In The Egeria, 294 F. 791, 794 (9th Cir. 1924) the court upheld the allowance by the District Court of a lien for travelling expenses from Portland to San Pedro for the purpose of obtaining funds to release the vessel. In The Ascutney, 278 F. 991, 992-993 (D.C.Maryland 1922) the court allowed the master's taxi expenses even though he could have used a streetcar; and in The Artemis, 53 F.2d 672, 676 (S.D.N.Y.1931), taxi cab fare for conveying provisions to the crew were allowed. This court will also allow the travelling expenses incurred by the master when attempting to obtain funds to pay the crews' wages.
No objection has been interposed to any of the other claims in the master's intervening complaint.
In view of the foregoing the opposition of National Western is denied and the Motion for Leave to Intervene of Apostolos Samadjapolus is hereby granted.
The defendant vessel has been adjudged in default. The plaintiffs have petitioned the Court, pursuant to Rule E(9) (6) of the Supplementary Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims to order the sale of the vessel, alleging that the custodia legis expenses were increasing and if allowed to continue indefinitely, would probably absorb the proceeds of the sale. Puerto Rico Drydock and Marine Terminals, Inc., the custodian appointed by order of the Court, has filed a Statement of Expenses, from July 3, 1967 to September 8, 1967, showing the total expenses as of that date to be $8,195.31. Said custodian also filed a schedule of the estimated daily expenses of custodia legis. All the appearing parties agree on the necessity of having the vessel sold within the shortest time possible in order to minimize the custodia legis expenses. The court would have no hesitancy about ordering the sale were it not for the objection of the Intervenor, Tropical Commerce Corp. to the sale unless it were subject to reservation of Tropical Commerce Corp.'s alleged title in certain equipment installed aboard ship, fuel oil and cargo still on board the vessel. The plaintiffs and the other intervenor's opposed the sale subject to any reservation of title as suggested, and, instead, contend that the property claimed by Tropical Commerce Corp. is part of the vessel and subject to their maritime liens for wages, repairs and for foreclosure of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Payne v. SS Tropic Breeze
-
Dewindt v. Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corp., Civil No. 166-1973
...in Monteiro v. Sociedad Mari-tima San Nicolas, S.A., 280 F.2d 568 (2d Cir. 1960), cert, den. 364 U.S. 915 (1960); Payne v. S.S. Tropic Breeze, 274 F.Supp. 324 (D.P.R. 1967), rev'd on other grounds, 412 F.2d 707 (1st Cir. 1969); Koukorinis v. S/T Eury-pyle, 214 F.Supp. 344 (E.D. Va. 1963); a......
-
FIRST NAT. BANK & TRUST CO., ETC. v. OIL SCREW, ETC.
...Dawn differently had it involved equipment more directly related to navigation. The Bank further cites language in Payme v. SS Tropic Breeze, 274 F.Supp. 324 (D.P.R.1967), rev'd. other grounds, 1 Cir., 412 F.2d 707, which points to the same result as reached in The Air Brant, supra, and Wha......
- Holloway v. Gamble-Skogmo, Inc., 67 C 499.