The Garonne

• Decision Date: 10 February 1908
• Citation: 160 F. 847
• Parties: THE GARONNE.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

160 F. 847

THE GARONNE.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

February 10, 1908

W. H Bogle, Charles P. Spooner, Dudley Du Bose, H. Y. Freedman and Thos. R. Shepard, for appellant.

Ira D Orton, Geo. A. Schofield, Campbell, Metson, Drew, Oatman &amp Mackenzie, and E. H. Ryan, for appellee.

Before GILBERT, ROSS, and MORROW, Circuit Judges.

GILBERT Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).

It is contended that there was error in allowing the appellee the sum of $291.65, the first item in the libel adjudged to be due him on the contract of lighterage made on May 16, 1904, and that the amount due on that contract is not a lien against the ship in the hands of the present owner.

But the owner allowed the North Alaska Steamship Company to have the entire control, management, and employment of the vessel, and to become the owner pro hac vice. In such a case the general owner must be deemed to consent that the special owner may create liens binding on the former's interest in the vessel as security for the performance of contracts of affreightment and for maritime service. The Schooner Freeman v. Buckingham et al., 18 How. 182, 15 L.Ed. 341. And a contract for the lighterage of freight and passengers from a vessel moored at a distance from the land is essentially a contract for a maritime service. Thackeray v. The Farmer, Gilp. 526, Fed. Cas. No. 13,852; Benedict's Admiralty, Sec. 158. The appellant denies that there is a lien, for the further reason that the North Alaska Steamship Company contracted with all shippers of cargo on that voyage that their goods should be received by the owners thereof at ship's tackle immediately on arrival at the port of delivery, and that if the consignee were not on hand to receive the goods as discharged, then the carrier might deliver the same to the wharfinger or other person believed by the carrier to be responsible, who should take charge of said property, pay freight on the same, or the same might be kept on board the vessel, or stored in hulks or in lighters by the carrier at the expense and risk of the owner, shipper, or consignee. It is claimed that by virtue of this agreement, so stipulating that lighterage shall be at the expense and risk of the consignees, no duty was imposed on the ship to pay for lighterage, and that therefore the contract of the North Alaska Steamship Company with the appellee was a personal contract made on the credit of that company, for the breach of which there is no lien upon the ship. We cannot see that the contract made between the carrier and the shippers of freight has anything to do with the question of the appellee's lien under his contract of lighterage. That was a maritime contract for a breach of which the appellee had a lien upon the vessel. He was not a party to the agreement between the carrier and the shippers, and his rights are in no way affected by the fact that the carrier saw fit to recoup the expense of lighterage from the owners or consignees of the goods.

The appellant contests the allowance of $475 and $150 as sued for in the second and third causes of action. All of these charges arose out of the service of lightering the vessel $425 was for lightering at Golovin Bay, a service which was not included in the original contract. But the ship had cargo to deliver there, and the agent of the North Alaska Steamship Company engaged the services of the appellee and promised to furnish him lighters there for the work. He did not have the lighters there. In consequence, the appellee was required to use his steam scow at his own expense,...