South Coast Co v. Rudbach the South Coast, 68
| Decision Date | 01 March 1920 |
| Docket Number | No. 68,68 |
| Citation | 64 L.Ed. 386,40 S.Ct. 233,251 U.S. 519 |
| Parties | SOUTH COAST S. S. CO. v. RUDBACH. THE SOUTH COAST |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Oliver Dibble, of San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 519-522 intentionally omitted] Mr. S. Hasket Derby, of San Francisco, Cal., for respondent.
This is a libel against the Steamer South Coast, belonging to the claimant, a California corporation, and registered in San Francisco, for necessary supplies furnished in San Pedro, California. The answer denies the authority of the master to bind the steamer. The bare vessel at the time was under charter to one Levick, the contract stipulating that Levick was to pay all charges and to save the owner harmless from all liens or expenses that it might be put to in consequence of such liens. There was also a provision that the owner might retake the vessel in case of failure of Levick to discharge within thirty days any debts which were liens upon it, and another for surrender of the vessel free of all liens upon Levick's failure to make certain payments. When the supplies were ordered representatives of the owner in San Pedro warned the libelant that the steamer was under charter and that he must not furnish the supplies on the credit of the vessel. He replied that he would not furnish them in any other way, but the reply does not affect the case because by the terms of the charter the master who ordered them, although appointed by the owner, was under the orders of Levick. It is agreed by both courts below that if the owner had power to prevent the attaching of a lien by its warning it had done so. Both courts however held that the charter gave the master power to create the lien. 233 Fed. 327; 247 Fed. 84, 159 C. C. A. 302.
By the Act of June 23, 1910, c. 373, § 1, 36 Stat. 604 (Comp. St. § 7783), a maritime lien is given for such supplies and by section 3 (Comp. St. § 7785) a presumption is declared that a master appointed by a charterer has authority from the owner to procure them. It is true that the act goes on that nothing in it shall be considered to give a lien where the furnisher knew, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence could have ascertained, that because of the terms of a charter party, or for any other reason, the person ordering the necessaries was without authority to bind the vessel. But the authority of the owner to prohibit or to speak was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dampskibsselskabet Dannebrog v. Signal Oil Gas Co of California the Stjerneborg
...a maritime lien when the charter party contains no prohibition against its creation. We think that our decision in The South Coast, 251 U.S. 519, 40 S.Ct. 233, 64 L.Ed. 386,4 negatives such a conclusion. That was a case of a bare-boat charter which provided that the charterer should pay for......
-
THE GOLDEN GATE
...and pay for all the coals and fuel oil except as otherwise agreed. * * *" The decision of the Supreme Court in The South Coast, 251 U. S. 519, 40 S. Ct. 233, 64 L. Ed. 386, deals with a charter in which the charterer agreed to pay for fuel and supplies furnished the vessel, but did not proh......
-
Diaz v. The SS Seathunder
...upon the credit of the vessel." 310 U.S. at pages 280-281, 60 S.Ct. at page 943, emphasis supplied. Earlier in The South Coast, 1920, 251 U.S. 519, 523, 40 S.Ct. 233, 64 L.Ed. 386, the authority of the owner of a demised vessel7 to prohibit the creation of liens against the vessel had been ......
-
Hercules Co. v. The Brigadier General Absolom Baird
...was personally liable for services ordered for the vessel.14 But that is exactly the kind of language which The South Coast, 1920, 251 U.S. 519, 40 S.Ct. 233, 64 L.Ed. 386, and Dampskibsselskabet Dannebrog v. Signal Oil & Gas Co., 1940, 310 U.S. 268, 60 S.Ct. 937, 84 L.Ed. 1197, held to be ......