The Bombay
| Decision Date | 11 December 1888 |
| Citation | 38 F. 512 |
| Parties | THE BOMBAY. v. THE BOMBAY. WIGTON et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
Bayne Denegre & Bayne, for libelants.
James McConnell, for respondent.
The facts necessary to be considered in this case are that the Bombay is an English steamer; that she was in Philadelphia and needed coal to prosecute her voyage to New Orleans, and it was furnished her. The vessel was under a charter, and it was during the time that the charter-party was in force that these coals were furnished. The coals were not furnished on the order of the master, though he states they were needed to enable her to prosecute her voyage to New Orleans. the Coal was furnished by the libelants' firm, under an arrangement made between LaTassa & Co., the charterers, of New York, and them, by which they were to supply with coal at Philadelphia, all steam-ships requiring fuel at this port of which LaTassa & Co. controlled the coaling. The libelants, in furnishing the coal, did not know anything about the financial standing of LaTassa & Co., and made no inquiries, because they considered the steam-ship liable for the coal. It is manifest from these facts that neither the master nor the owners gave any order for the coal that was furnished to the vessel, that the question whether the vessel is subjected to a lien for the supply of these coals must depend entirely upon whether the charter-party made the charterers owners pro hac vice. All the authorities are agreed that ' The question, then, simply is whether by the terms of this charter-party the charterers were to have, and did have, the control management, and possession of the vessel. The vessel was chartered for the voyage between the Mediterranean and the United States, the United Kingdom, or the continent, as the charterers or their agents shall direct. The owners were to man the vessel, pay for all provisions, wages, consular, shipping, and discharging fees of the captain, officers, engineers, firemen, and the crew, the insurance of the vessel, all engine-room stores, and maintain her in a thorough and efficient state, in hull and machinery, for and during the service. The charterers were to provide and pay for all coals, port charges, pilotage, etc., except as above stated. The charter-party further provided that 'the captain, though appointed by the owners, should be under the orders and directions of the charterers, as regards employment, agency, or other matters;' and the charterers agreed to indemnify the owners from all consequences or liability with reference to signing bills of lading. The decisive stipulation in this charter-party is the last,-- that the captain, though appointed by the owners, should be under the orders and directions of the charterers as regards employment, agency, or other arrangements. This, in The India, 14 F. 476, and 16 F. 262,-- the same case,-- was thought by Judges BLATCHFORD and WALLACE to determine that the owners had made the charterer the owner pro hac vice. See, also, Judge NELSON'S opinion in The City of New York, 3 Blatchf. 187, and The Freeman, 18 How. 182-190. In Leary v. U.S., 14 Wall. 607, it is said 'that the retention by the general owner of such command, possession, and control is incompatible with the existence at the same time of such special ownership in the charterer. ' Page 611. But in this case the matter as to the party in whom command, possession and control should be vested is not left to inference, but is settled by the clause in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Underwriter
...Albus, Fed. Cas. No. 13,694; The S. M. Whipple (D.C.) 14 F. 354; The Alvira (D.C.) 63 F. 144. In the Bombay (C.C.) 38 F. 863; Id. (D.C.) 38 F. 512, it not stated if the libelants knew that the vessel was under charter, and it is said expressly that they had no notice of its provisions. By t......
-
Dampskibsselskabet Dannebrog v. Signal Oil Gas Co of California the Stjerneborg
...U.S. 464, 468, 21 S.Ct. 684, 686, 45 L.Ed. 954. 6 See, e.g., upholding the lien: The India, D.C., 14 F. 476; Id., C.C., 16 F. 262; The Bombay, D.C., 38 F. 512; Id., C.C., 38 F. 863; The George Dumois, 5 Cir., 68 F. 926; The Anna E. Morse, 3 Cir., 286 F. 794; The A. S. Sherman, 51 F.2d 782; ......
-
Gronvold v. Suryan
...See, also, Gracie v. Palmer, 8 Wheat. 605, 5 L. Ed. 696; United States v. Shea, 152 U. S. 178, 14 S. Ct. 519, 38 L. Ed. 403; The Bombay (D. C.) 38 F. 512; American Steel-Barge Co. v. Cargo of Coal (D. C.) 107 F. 964. The engineer was a servant of the charterer (libelant). Gibson v. Manetto ......
-
The Del Norte
... ... a fixed rule of law inconsistent with any right in an owner ... pro hac vice to hold the ship or her general owner liable to ... him for losses attributable to torts or crimes of the master ... or crew. The Daniel Burns (D.C.) 52 F. 159. The Bombay (D.C.) ... 38 F. 512. In such a case the charterer is himself ... responsible for the torts of the master, because, having a ... legal right to control, he is legally presumed to actually ... control, the master's conduct. On the other hand, the ... general owner is not responsible, because he ... ...