Samuel Hobart and Others, Claimants of the Brig Hope and Cargo, Appellants v. Andrew Drogan and Others, Libellants
| Decision Date | 01 January 1836 |
| Citation | 9 L.Ed. 363,10 Pet. 108,35 U.S. 108 |
| Parties | SAMUEL B. HOBART AND OTHERS, CLAIMANTS OF THE BRIG HOPE AND CARGO, APPELLANTS v. ANDREW DROGAN AND OTHERS, LIBELLANTS |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ON appeal from the district court of the United States for the southern district of Alabama.
The ship Hope was bound to Mobile from Havana, in January, 1832, with a cargo of fruit, sugar, coffee, segars, and tobacco. She arrived off the port of Mobile on the 24th January, 1832, took a pilot, and was carried safely within Mobile Point, to a place at which the pilots are usually discharged; the pilot then left her, and she proceeded some distance up the bay, and came to anchor about six miles within Mobile Point.
In the night, the wind rose to a powerful gale; in the course of which the brig parted her cables, and was driven by the force of the winds and waves below Mobile Point, where she grounded. The master and crew, in order to save their lives, took to the boat, and left the brig and cargo.
The vessel remained grounded for some time in great peril, having bilged, and having four feet water in her hold. The libellants, who were pilots of the outer harbor of Mobile, after having, without success, made previous efforts to board her, at length succeeded; and less than half an hour afterwards, the wind having changed, the vessel and cargo floated off; and the libellants took her in charge. Had not the libellants been on board the Hope at the time the wind changed, she would have been driven on the opposite shore, and would, with her cargo, in the opinion of the witnesses examined in the district court, have been totally lost. She was towed by the boats of the libellants into the port of Mobile.
The libellants proceeded for salvage against the Hope and cargo, and the district court awarded to them, as salvage, one-third of the value of the ship and cargo. The total value of the property saved was $15,299 58.
The owners appealed to this Court.
The case was argued by Mr. Ogden, for the appellants, and by Mr. Southard, for the appellees.
The facts of the case are stated more at large in the opinion of the court.
Mr. Ogden contended, that as the libellants were pilots of the outer bay of Mobile, they could not be considered as salvors; and could not claim salvage for such services as those which had been rendered to the Hope. The proceedings in the district court were for salvage, as appears by the bill; and the decree of that court, made on the 18th January, 1833, is for one-third of the amount of the appraised value of the property saved, 'as salvage.'
Having claimed as salvors, and the law not authorizing such a claim, they cannot now, by an amendment of the libel, state such a claim as this court will ratify. The amendment would alter the whole nature of the case; and although amendments are, in many cases, allowed in an appellate court, this is not such a case. Cited 9 Cranch, 244, 284. The Edward 1 Wheat. 261; 7 Cranch, 570; Divina Pastora, 4 Wheat. 52.
The following points were presented for the consideration of the court:
1. That it was the duty of the libellants, as pilots, to give any assistance in their power, to vessels in distress, within the limits of their pilot ground; and this being a service rendered in discharge of their duty, forms no case for a claim of salvage.
2. That the act of congress leaves the regulations of pilots to the state laws; and by the law of Alabama, any extra allowance claimed by pilots, must be fixed by the wardens of the port.
3. That the district court of Alabama had no jurisdiction in this case.
By the libel it appears that the libellants were pilots of the port of Mobile, in Alabama; and the first question for the consideration of the court is, whether pilots can claim salvage under the circumstance of this case.
The principles of law which regulate such claims, claims for compensation and reward for services which are performed in the ordinary course of the duties of the sitation of the person who performs them, virtute officii, are reported in the case of Le Tigre, 3 Wash. C. C. R. 570, 71. A pilot is not entitled to salvage unless he goes beyond his ordinary duties. A person who is bound to render assistance in saving a ship, cannot be considered a salvor. The Neptune, 1 Hog. Ad. Rep. 266; The Joseph, 1 Rob. Ad. Rep. 257. A pilot is not to claim as a salvor. Bees. Ad. Rep. 212. A case has been decided by Mr. Justice Thompson, in the circuit court of the southern district of New York, in which pilots who had rescued the ship from great danger, were not admitted to be salvors. The case of the Wave, Mss. Rep. The danger in which the vessel may be, does not lessen the duty of a pilot to rescue and save her. When a vessel is in distress, and is found in that situation by pilots on their cruising ground, it is their duty as pilots to bring her into port. If the services have been great, they are entitled to extra pilotage, to be decided according to the laws of the state of which the port out of which the pilots cruise is a part. The regulations of pilots of the port of Mobile, make provision for extra compensation in such cases; and in conformity with these regulations, and under them, the libellants were bound to present their claims.
It was contended that the case of the Wave was in all important particulars the same as the case before the court. The Wave was outside of the port of New York, was in great peril, and was boarded off Sandy Hook by the pilots. The court would allow no salvage.
On the second point, it was argued that if the libellants cannot claim as salvors, they cannot claim extra compensation by proceeding in the district court by a libel. The compensation or extra allowance must be fixed, according to the laws of Alabama, by the wardens of the port of Mobile.
It is admitted that claims for services rendered by pilots which may entitle them to extra allowances, may be entertained in the admiralty; but the admiralty jurisdiction of the courts of the United States in such cases is concurrent with that of the courts of the States—It is not exclusive. In the same manner, actions for seamen's wages may be maintained in the courts of common law, although they are more properly of admiralty proceedings. It is for convenience, as all the seamen of a ship may be joined in a libel for wages, that such claims are generally persented in the admiralty; and not because the admiralty has exclusive cognizance of them. The jurisdiction of the courts of common law and of courts of admiralty being concurrent, the recovery in both courts should be the same, and should be regulated and limited by the provisions of a law applicable to the case. To suppose that proceedings in one court would produce a different result, a higher or a lower rate of compensation, would not be proper. The principles of the law in both courts should be alike, as would be the evidence; and the application of these principles should be the same.
If then a compensation is fixed by law for the services of a pilot, he cannot, by coming into the admiralty, ask a greater compensation than is allowed him by a law applicable to the case. If, by the provisions of a law, extra compensation is to be given, and the manner in which the amount of such compensation is to be determined is fixed; no recovery can be had in the admiralty until after a proceeding under the provisions of the law shall have determined the amount of the allowances; and that alone can be recovered in the admiralty. Has the law fixed any compensation for the services of pilots who perform ordinary or extraordinary duties?
The constitution of the United States gives to congress the power to regulate commerce. Under this power it may be that congress might regulate the pilots in all the ports of the United States; but it is not admitted that they could do this to the full extent: they could not regulate the compensation to pilots, for, if they could, they might regulate the wharves and fix the rate of wharfage in all the seaports. The duties of pilots, their regulation, their compensation, are properly left to the legislatures of the states of the Union. Congress, whatever may be their powers, have, by an act passed on the 7th of August, 1794, (2 Laws U. S. chap. 9, sec. 4,) declared that pilots in the ports of the United States shall be regulated by state laws. By this provision, the laws of the states are to govern in all the claims made by pilots, until congress shall interfere.
Alabama has passed laws for the government and regulation of pilots and pilotage; the fare for the ordinary services of pilots is fixed, and provision is made for determining the compensation for extraordinary services. This is to be determined by the wardens of the port. Their law is in all respects the same as the law relative to pilots in New York.
It has been decided by Mr. Justice Thompson, in the case of the Wave, that congress has, by their act of 1794, adopted all the laws of the states in relation to pilots. If so, then the libellants could not proceed in the district court of Alabama, as that court had no jurisdiction of the case.
Mr. Southard, for the appellees.
The libellants are pilots of the outer harbor of Mobile; and their duty is to conduct vessels from the gulf of Mexico into the bay of Mobile. They performed services by which the brig Hope and cargo were saved from a total loss and entire destruction; and by the district court of the United States for the district of Alabama, they have been allowed one-third of the value of the property saved, as salvage. They presented themselves before that court as salvors, and their claim here is purely a question of salvage. This claim is distinctly made in the libel as a claim for salvage; and it will be treated as such in the argument now addressed to the court.
It is not denied that the services of the libellants were meritorious. They boarded the vessel when she was in extreme peril, while she was yet...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Markakis v. S/S VOLENDAM, 79 Civ. 0945.
...Paul, 86 F. 340, 342 (2d Cir. 1898). Cf. The Roanoke, 214 F. 63, 65 (9th Cir. 1914). 19 See, e. g., Hobart v. Drogan The Hope, 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 108, 122, 9 L.Ed. 363 (1836) (Story, J.); Bertel v. Panama Transport Co., 202 F.2d 247, 248-49 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 346 U.S. 834, 74 S.Ct. 35,......
-
Munson S.S. Line v. Miramar S.S. Co.
...of the law committed while it was in force, unless some special provision be made for that purpose by statute.' In Hobart v. Drogan (1836) 10 Pet. 108, 119, 9 L.Ed. 363, Mr. Justice Story said: 'No objection has been made to the amount of salvage decreed by the court below, if the libelants......
-
Knickerbocker Ice Co v. Stewart
...the words used by the several States—a not unfamiliar form of law. Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 207, 6 L. Ed. 23; Hobart v. Drogan, 10 Pet. 108, 119, 9 L. Ed. 363; Cooley v. Board of Wardens, 12 How. 299, 317, 318, 13 L. Ed. 996; Interstate Consolidated Street Ry. Co. v. Massachusetts, 207......
-
United States v. Middleton
...inadequate, that there should be an increase in the same by the appellate court. The Sybil, 4 Wheat. 98, 4 L. Ed. 522; Hobert v. Drogan, 10 Pet. 119, 9 L. Ed. 363; The Camanche, 8 Wall. 448, 19 L. Ed. 397; The Ariadne, 13 Wall. 475, 20 L. Ed. 542; Oelwerke Teutonia v. Erlanger, 248 U. S. 25......
-
The Changing Face of Arbitration: What Once Was Old Is New Again
...Control, 35 U. RICH. L. REV. 1085 (2002). 8. Cole, supra note 7, at 461. 9. Id. at 461-62. 10. Id. at 464-65. See also Hobart v. Drogan, 35 U.S. 108 (1836). 11. 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 445 (1874). 12. See Sternlight, Supra note 7, at 302-03. 13. Arbitration Act of Feb. 12, 1925, ch. 213, 43 Stat......
-
Eeoc v. Waffle House, Inc.: Employers Beware - the Eeoc Is Now the "master of Its Own Case' - Brandon L. Peak
...supra note 21, at 482. 23. Haydock & Henderson, supra note 21, at 144-46 (citing Vynior's Case, 4 Eng. Rep.302 (1609); Hobart v. Drogan, 35 U.S. 108, 119 (1836)). 24. Id. at 148-51. 25. Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20, 24 (1991) (citing Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd......