Pond v. The Hattie Thomas

• Decision Date: 01 January 1894
• Citation: 59 F. 297
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
• Parties: THE HATTIE THOMAS. v. THE HATTIE THOMAS. POND

59 F. 297

THE HATTIE THOMAS.

POND v. THE HATTIE THOMAS.

United States District Court, D. Connecticut.

January 1, 1894

Howard N. Wakeman, for libelant.

Henry G. Newton, for defendant.

TOWNSEND District Judge.

This is a proceeding in rem for seaman's wages and services as keeper of the schooner Hattie Thomas, enrolled at New Haven Conn. The case was referred to a commissioner, and comes before the court upon exceptions to his report.

The material facts are as follows: On or about November 13, 1891 one Alfred Thomas, master and managing owner of said schooner, was sick, and employed the libelant to take charge of her. The libelant made trips in her from Branford, Conn to various places, until the latter part of December, 1891. During this period he had the entire control of said vessel securing freights, receiving and discharging cargoes, securing tows, collecting freight moneys, furnishing supplies for the vessel, hiring, discharging, and paying the seamen, having full authority to go anywhere he pleased, to take any load he could get, to run the vessel as he saw fit, and to do what he thought best with her. Thomas was enrolled as master during all this time, but the libelant, on one or more occasions, signed his name as master. Upon these facts the commissioner finds the sum of $22.82 due for said services as seaman's wages, provided the court shall find that the libelant during said period was a seaman, and, as such, entitled to a lien against said vessel.

It does not appear from the testimony of the libelant, or from the bill which he sent to Thomas, that his contract was upon the credit of the vessel. It does appear that he had money passing through his hands which he might have retained in payment of his own wages, but that he expended it for other purposes, and looked to the personal responsibility of the owner for his compensation. Under these circumstances it seems to me that the libelant is not entitled to a lien. The Imogene M. Terry, 19 F. 463; Peterson v. The Nellie and Annie, 37 F. 217; The Atlas, 42 F. 793; The Atlantic, 53 F. 607. As is said in Peterson v. The Nellie and Annie, supra:

'Without respect to the registry laws, he would be master to whom the owner actually intrusted the navigation and discipline of the vessel. The inquiry in each case is, what is the fact? As Judge Nixon observes in The Imogene M. Terry, 19 F. 463: 'Courts of admiralty deal with things, not words.''

And in said case the libelant was denied a lien for the trip during which he actually served as master.

The only question on this part of the case arises out of the fact that during the time the libelant acted as master he was not enrolled as master. In The Dubuque, 2 Abb. (U. S.) 20, it is said that the enrollment is conclusive on the question. Without questioning the correctness of the decision of the learned judge upon the peculiar facts of that case, it may be observed that the rights of the owner were not under consideration therein, and that the statement above referred to was an obiter dictum. Courts of admiralty are not disposed to apply the doctrine of estoppel against the claims of seamen. But in this case the libelant, having made a personal contract with the managing owner, under which he occupied the position and performed all the duties of a master, must be presumed to have contracted upon the credit of the owner, and cannot now claim the lien of a seaman. Peterson v. The Nellie and Annie, supra; The M. Vandercook, 24 F. 472.

After the completion of said trips the libelant entered into a new arrangement with said Thomas, under which, at his request, he brought said schooner into said Brandford, and laid her up there, and took care of her for three months. He anchored her on the fiats, swung her around to get her out of the channel pumped her out, dried sails, saw to her fastenings, and supervised her generally. In this care he was assisted at times by two other men and by his wife. For these services be charged, and the commissioner allowed him, $30. The claimant claims that these services were not maritime services, and among other exceptions, excepts to the report of the commissioner allowing said claim as a lien against said vessel in her home port. This exception raises a difficult question, and one concerning which there has been much conflict of authority. The earlier decisions denied a lien for services such as those rendered by watchmen and stevedores upon either a foreign or domestic vessel while in port, because the services were not rendered by mariners, or were, for other reasons, not maritime in their nature, or concerned the cargo, and not the ship. The Amstel, Blatchf. & H. 215; The A. R. Dunlap, 1 Low. 350. In The George T. Kemp, 2 Low. 477; The Windermere, 2 F. 722; The Erinagh, 7 F. 231; The Hattie M. Bain, 20 F. 389; The Velox, 21 F. 479; The Scotia, 35 F. 916; The Gilbert Knapp, 37 F. 209;...