The Daisy Day
| Citation | 40 F. 603 |
| Parties | THE DAISY DAY. v. THE DAISY DAY. MARINE INS. CO. |
| Decision Date | 23 September 1889 |
| Court | United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District Michigan) |
M. C. & A. A. Krause, for original libelants.
Fletcher & Wanty, for Marine Insurance Company.
Peter Doran, for other intervenors.
The decree of the district court, directing the distribution of the proceeds arising from the sale of the propeller Daisy Day, is only appealed from by the intervening libelant, the Marine Insurance Company. The decree below ordered the fund to be distributed as follows, viz.: First, in payment of seamen's wages, with costs; second, in payment of damages awarded G. F. Gunderson for injuries sustained by his schooner G. Barber from negligent towage by the Daisy Day with costs; third, in payment of claims for supplies and repairs, (foreign and domestic claims of this class being placed upon the same footing, under the authority of The General Burnside, 3 F. 228, and The Guiding Star, 18 F 263-269,) with costs; and, lastly, in payment of the Marine Insurance Company's claim for unpaid premiums on insurance upon said propeller Daisy Day, said insurance having been taken out by and for the benefit of the owners of said propeller. The fund will be almost, if not altogether exhausted before reaching the claim of the Marine Insurance Company, which alone appeals from said order of distribution. This appeal of the insurance company does not bring up or make it necessary to consider the correctness of the order of distribution as between the seamen and Gunderson and the material-men. Those parties all acquiesce in the decree. But the Marine Insurance Company complains of the position assigned it in the distribution. It contends that its debt for unpaid premiums should rank and be paid equally with the claims for supplies and repairs, and should have priority or precedence over the claim of said Gunderson for damages sustained by him from negligent towage of his schooner G Barber by the Daisy Day. In support of these claims on behalf of the insurance company it is urged-- First, that by the general admiralty law of the United States, said insurance company had a maritime lien on the Daisy Day for unpaid premiums on the policy of marine insurance, which the owners of said propeller procured from libelant; and, second, that, if no such maritime lien existed by the general admiralty law, the statutes of Michigan confer such a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grow v. Steel Gas Screw Loraine K
...insurance premiums was enforced in Admiralty. The Guiding Star, 9 F. 521 (D.C.S.D.O.), affirmed 18 F. 263; Marine Insurance Co. v. The Daisy Day, 40 F. 603 (Cir.Ct., W.D.Mich., 1889). The brokers sole reliance for a lien is on the Michigan statute. Since no lien for insurance premiums was p......
-
The City of Camden
...and other authorities cited, supra. Admiralty law gives no maritime lien on a vessel for unpaid premiums on insurance thereon. The Daisy Day (C.C.) 40 F. 603, authorities cited therein. The items for insurance claimed in the intervener's account are, therefore, disallowed. The other items i......