Savas v. Maria Trading Corporation

• Decision Date: 16 December 1960
• Docket Number: No. 8137.,8137.
• Parties: Frank SAVAS, Individually and trading as World Wide Engineering Company, Libellant, Appellee, v. MARIA TRADING CORPORATION, Impleaded Respondent, Appellant. Frank SAVAS, Individually and trading as World Wide Engineering Company, Libellant, Appellant, v. THE Steamship CAPT. JOHN C., her boilers, engines, tackle, apparel and furniture, in rem, Respondent, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

285 F.2d 336 (1960)

Frank SAVAS, Individually and trading as World Wide Engineering Company, Libellant, Appellee, v. MARIA TRADING CORPORATION, Impleaded Respondent, Appellant.

Frank SAVAS, Individually and trading as World Wide Engineering Company, Libellant, Appellant, v. THE Steamship CAPT. JOHN C., her boilers, engines, tackle, apparel and furniture, in rem, Respondent, Appellee.

No. 8137.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued October 14, 1960.

Decided December 16, 1960.

Carter B. S. Furr and John W. Winston, Norfolk, Va. (Seawell, McCoy, Winston & Dalton, Norfolk, Va., on brief), for libellant Frank Savas.

Francis N. Crenshaw, Norfolk, Va. (Baird, Crenshaw & Lanning, Norfolk, Va., on brief), for impleaded respondent Maria Trading Corp.

Hugh S. Meredith, Norfolk, Va. (Vandeventer, Black, Meredith & Martin, Norfolk, Va., on brief), for respondent S.S. The Capt. John C.

Before SOBELOFF, Chief Judge, and SOPER and BOREMAN, Circuit Judges.

SOPER, Circuit Judge.

This appeal is taken by Frank Savas, a maritime surveyor, from a decree of the district court in admiralty which denied him a maritime lien against the SS Capt. John C for services rendered to the vessel in Bremen, Germany. Maria Trading Corporation, a Panamanian corporation, formerly owner of the ship and an impleaded respondent in the case, also appeals from an in personam decree against it.

Savas filed a libel in rem against the ship on August 10, 1956, as she lay in the Norfolk harbor, claiming compensation for services to the ship in three transactions, as follows:

(1) a claim for labor performed, materials furnished and services rendered at Norfolk, Virginia, from August 24, 1955 to September 1, 1955, in the sum of $1780.00;

(2) a claim for labor performed, materials furnished and services rendered at Baltimore, Maryland, from August 16, 1955 to October 21, 1955, in the sum of $2560.00; and

(3) a claim for services rendered in the supervision of repairs, transportation and subsistence expenses of the libellant and cash furnished by him for miscellaneous purposes in connection with the ship at Bremen from November 17, 1955 to February 29, 1956, in the sum of $10,182.22.

By the final decree the in rem claims of the libellant against the ship in the first two transactions were allowed but the in rem claim on the third transaction was denied. However, a decree in personam in his favor was given against the Maria Trading Corporation and a decree in favor of Associated Bulk Cargo S.A., the owner of the ship when the libel was filed, was awarded against Maria Trading Corporation for a judgment over; and these in personam claims were referred to a commissioner to hear proofs as to Savas' claim for services performed and expenses incurred in the Bremen transaction, and the commissioner was directed also to consider the claim of Associated Bulk Cargo for such detention damages as may be shown by the evidence and report to the court thereon. Appeals from the adverse judgments were taken as aforesaid.

Little need be said about the Norfolk and Baltimore claims of Savas since it is conceded that the work performed at these ports would "under normal circumstances support a maritime lien." The appeal by Maria Trading as to these claims rests only on the contention that Savas had an "ownership interest" in the ship inconsistent with the existence of a maritime lien. The facts in relation to this contention must be considered, since they have a bearing not only on the Norfolk and Baltimore transactions but also on the Bremen transaction.

Prior to the transactions which gave rise to the claims in suit, to wit: on May 27, 1955, George Stathos, a friend of Savas, entered into an agreement with William F. Murphy, Jr., the owner of all the stock of the Maria Trading Corporation, to purchase the stock for the sum of $340,000, of which $10,000 was to be paid upon the signing of the agreement, $25,000 on June 3, 1955, $15,000 on June 30, 1955, the balance to be paid out of the earnings of the ship, which were to be collected by the Gallie Corporation, the operating agent of the ship occupying offices with the Maria Trading Corporation in New York. The agreement provided that the stock should be held in escrow until the purchase price was paid in full and that in the meantime Murphy should have the right, in case Stathos was in default, to sell the vessel to anyone else, if the net proceeds of sale exceeded the indebtedness, in which case the proceeds were to be used to pay the indebtedness and credited to Stathos' account. By subsequent agreement of November 18, 1955, the distribution of the proceeds in case of a sale to a third party was somewhat modified.

Stathos made the initial payment of $10,000 and borrowed $25,000 from Savas to make the second payment. At or about this time Stathos, Savas and one Kirkilies entered into an agreement whereby Stathos agreed to sell 25 per cent of the stock of the corporation to Savas for $25,000 and 10 per cent to Kirkilies for $10,000. This agreement, however, was never consummated since on July 17, 1956, after all the work involved in the three transactions had been performed and before the libel was filed, Murphy exercised the privilege retained by him and sold the ship to the Associated Bulk Cargo S.A. The new purchaser came into the pending case as claimant of the vessel and on August 6, 1957, filed an impleading petition alleging that it had purchased the ship from the Maria Trading Corporation in a bill of sale under which that corporation undertook to convey good title to the vessel, free and clear of liens, and praying that a decree might be entered against it for the amount of any liens imposed upon the vessel and also for detention damages.

We are in accord with the conclusion of the district judge that under these circumstances Savas had no ownership in the vessel inconsistent with the maintenance of a maritime lien for services rendered. He was employed at Stathos' request with the expectation that he would acquire an interest in the vessel upon the consummation of the agreement of sale between Murphy and Stathos; but, as we have seen, the vessel was sold to another party and Savas never became a stockholder in the corporation which owned her.

It follows that, insofar as the Savas lien claims are concerned, we need give further consideration only to the dismissal of the lien claim for services rendered by him in Bremen. The district judge held that Savas was not entitled to a lien for these services because he was acting as the owner's representative in Germany and not as a marine surveyor or independent contractor. We are in agreement with this conclusion. While it is provided by 46 U.S.C.A. § 971 that a person furnishing repairs or supplies to a vessel upon the order of the owner or his agent is entitled to a lien upon the vessel, it is established by the decisions of the courts that a general agent of the owner has no lien for services rendered, the theory being that he acts not as a stranger relying on the security of the vessel but as an agent of the owner to whom he looks for payment. The Centaurus, 4 Cir., 291 F. 751; The Maret, 3 Cir., 145 F.2d 431; Todd Shipyards Corp. v. City of Athens, D.C.Md., 83 F. Supp. 67, affirmed Acker v. City of Athens, 4 Cir., 177 F.2d 961; The Ascutney, D.C.Md., 278 F. 991; The Gyda, D.C.Me., 235 F. 266; The Owego, D.C.E.D.La., 292 F. 403.

Savas was not such a general agent of the ship as the Gallie Corporation which operated her from its New York offices, but the evidence clearly shows that he performed his services in...