The Chatfield
| Decision Date | 18 July 1892 |
| Parties | SHELDRAKE v. THE CHATFIELD. In re Petition of THE MERRITTS. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
T. S Garnett, for petitioners.
Whitehurst & Hughes, for the Brixham.
The case in chief was decided by this court on the 14th of March last. [1] This petition had been filed on the 25th of February preceding. Upon the facts shown by the record, this court awarded the sum of $12,500 to the Brixham for salvage services rendered to the steamship Chatfield, of which $5,500 was intended in remuneration for expenses and damages incurred by the Brixham, and $7,000 as bounty for a meritorious salvage service. This sum of $7,000 is now in the registry of the court. The service was rendered by the Brixham to the Chatfield on the 27th of October, 1891, in taking hold of her when well out to sea, with a broken propeller, in a heavy gale, towing her the greater part of the day to an anchorage 40 miles southeastwardly from Cape Henry, and lying by her all night of the 27th, until the next morning, when the wind had abated, but the sea was still running high. The service of the Brixham to the Chatfield was completed on the morning of the 28th, and was never resumed. For this service the award of salvage which has been described was made by this court. On the morning of the 28th Capt. McFee, master of the Chatfield, deputed Sheldrake master of the Brixham, to come into Norfolk for the purpose of engaging a strong tug to go out for the Chatfield, and to give aid in towing her into port. Capt. Sheldrake came to Norfolk with the Brixham, in pursuance of these instructions of Capt. McFee, and engaged the Rescue, a strong tug, owned by the Merritt Wrecking Organization, to go to the assistance of the Chatfield. What was said between Capt. Sheldrake, agent of the Chatfield, and Thadeus Gray, agent of the Merritts, in Norfolk, in the negotiation which secured the Rescue's services, is hereafter detailed
The petition of the Merritts, now to be considered and passed upon, claims, on the basis of that negotiation, one half of the salvage bounty which should be received by the Brixham; that is to say, as matters have turned out, one half of the $7,000 now in the registry of this court. As a matter of fact, the expedition of the Rescue in search of the Chatfield was fruitless. An hour or two after Capt. Sheldrake left the Chatfield off Cape Henry, on the morning of the 28th of October, another steamship, coming in sight, was signaled by the Chatfield, took her in tow, and brought her into Hampton Roads, where they arrived before the Rescue and Brixham had set out from Norfolk, on the night of the 28th, in search of the Chatfield; and the Rescue, in point of fact, rendered no beneficial service to the Chatfield whatever, either in the nature of salvage or of simple towing. As already stated, this petition is brought to subject half of the salvage bounty, which, since its filing, has been awarded to the Brixham, to the payment of the Merritts for the intended service of the Rescue to the Chatfield, as described; which half is claimed under an alleged agreement between Gray, agent of the Rescue, and Sheldrake, agent of the Chatfield, on the night of the 28th, whatever that agreement was. On that subject the testimony is substantially as follows: Capt. Sheldrake came to Norfolk on the Brixham, as instructed by the master of the Chatfield. He arrived in port on the afternoon of the 28th, and at once sought the office of William Lamb, shipping merchant, who had acted on a previous occasion as agent of the Brixham. Col. Lamb being absent, Capt. Sheldrake requested his clerk or cashier to advise him in procuring a tug of the kind he was in search of. This clerk's name is Hugo Arnal. Through him, Thadeus Gray, agent of the Merritts, was sent for, with whom, after some conversation, it was agreed that the tug Rescue should forthwith set out, in company with the Brixham, to the assistance of the Chatfield. The two steamers did accordingly set out at once, and reached the point at which the Brixham had left the Chatfield early on the morning of the 29th. As a matter of course, they failed to find her; the Chatfield, as before stated, having been brought into Hampton Roads on the 28th by another vessel. The two steamers, therefore, had nothing else to do, after a day's useless search, but to return to Norfolk without the Chatfield.
As to the agreement that was made between Sheldrake and Gray, the following, somewhat abridged, is what the latter says on the subject:
I says to him, 'Captain Sheldrake, a vessel lying out there anchored, though you may think she will stay there until you get back, it is very unlikely she will do so; for some coasting vessel will come along and pick her up;' and I didn't make him any answer for some time, and discussed the situation with him, and was about to take my leave, and he then spoke up, and, said he, 'Well, I'll throw in the twelve hours' towing that I have done.' Then I said, 'In consideration of that, I will do it.' Than I started out of the door. We met Captain Nelson in the hall, and I remarked to Captain Sheldrake that he was to go in full halves in all that he got, and called Captain Nelson's attention to it, and Captain Sheldrake says, 'Yes; in full halves of all we get."
In regard to this interview, Capt. Sheldrake says:
Capt Nelson, who went out on the Rescue, says, in regard to the occurrence in the hall of Col. Lamb's office in his presence, that 'it was stated by Gray that the Merritts were to have full half of what Sheldrake was to get, and Sheldrake replied 'full half;" but Capt. Nelson does not say, and did not seem to know, what it was that was to be halved; whether it was what was to be earned by their joint services, or what...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Maryland Casualty Company
...v. City of New York, 2 Cir., 30 F.2d 366, 1929 A.M.C. 216; The American Eagle, D.C.Del., 28 F.2d 1000, 1929 A.M.C. 105; Sheldrake v. The Chatfield, D.C.E.D.Va., 52 F. 495; Petition of Sanuiti, D.C.N.D.N.Y., 124 F. Supp. 69, 1954 A.M.C. 990, suggested that justice and fairness required the a......
-
INDUSTRIA E. COMERCIO DE MINERIOS v. Nova Genuesis Societa
...personam admiralty proceedings, see Defense Plant Corporation v. United States Barge Lines, 2 Cir., 145 F.2d 766, 767; Sheldrake v. The Chatfield, D.C.E.D.Va., 52 F. 495. The foregoing effectively disposes of the right to intervene. At the time of reargument proctors for the attempted inter......
-
Industria E. Comercio De Minerios v. Nova Genuesis Societa
...37 S.Ct. 717, 61 L.Ed. 1253; Defense Plant Corporation v. United States Barge Lines, 2 Cir., 145 F.2d 766; Sheldrake v. The Chatfield, Eastern District of Virginia, 4 Cir., 52 F. 495; Bennett Day Importing Co., Inc., v. Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur, 2 Cir., 42 F.2d In the pend......
-
THE SS ETNA, No. 1 of 1941.
...she has been sold and the proceeds of the sale are in court, citing The Oregon, 158 U.S. 186, 15 S.Ct. 804, 39 L.Ed. 943; Sheldrake v. The Chatfield, D.C., 52 F. 495; The Flush, D.C., 274 F. 133; The Alesia, D.C., 42 F.2d 295; and The Katahdin, D.C., 4 F.Supp. 180. While it is true that thi......