The Grapeshot
| Decision Date | 20 October 1884 |
| Citation | 22 F. 123 |
| Parties | THE GRAPESHOT, etc., and Six Other Cases. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Alexander & Ash, for Coffey and others.
Owen & Gray, for Coffin and others.
Thomas M. F. Randolph, for Communipaw Coal Co.
The tug-boat Grapeshot, having been libeled upon various claims for wages, for repairs and supplies, and for damages, has been sold, and the net proceeds, amounting to $1,058, have been paid into the registry of the court. She was first seized under a libel filed by James Coffey and others for wages. Four other libels, filed shortly afterwards, were all for repairs and supplies furnished to the tug, each consisting of various items furnished at different times. They all overlap one another, and cover a period extending from about March 1 to July 16, 1884. The libel of Richard Coffin was filed to recover damages sustained by the schooner Velma, which was in tow of the Grapeshot, and is alleged to have been run aground on July 5, 1884, through the negligence of the tug. This was the earliest libel filed, though not the first under which the Grapeshot was arrested. The liability of the tug for these damages is denied, and the suit has not yet been brought to trial. In all the other cases judgments have been recovered. The last libel filed was for coal supplied by the Communipaw Coal Company to the amount of $34.38, between July 18 and July 22, 1884, after the arrest of the vessel by the marshal, and while she was in his custody and was apparently permitted by him to be run by the owners. The amount in the registry being insufficient to pay all the various claims, the parties have submitted to the court the question of their respective priorities, as well as their right to costs.
I do not find upon the facts any such laches in regard to any of the claims as should debar them from their proper order of privilege. The claims for wages must, therefore, be paid in full, and the proctors in that case should be allowed one full bill of costs, as the vessel was seized and sold in their suit. The Samuel J. Christian, 16 F. 796; The J. W Tucker, 20 F. 134.
The lien claimed by the Communipaw Coal Company for coal supplied to the vessel while she was in the lawful custody of the marshal must be postponed to all other claims. The company had already libeled the vessel for previous supplies to a considerable amount. It cannot be allowed that the claims of libelants shall be prejudiced by any supplies subsequently furnished while the vessel is legally in the custody of the court, through the possession of the marshal, in consequence of any consent that he may have given to her further navigation. The Aline, 1 Wm.Rob. 112, 122.
The four other libels for repairs and supplies embrace, as I have said, numerous items extending over a period of about four months, and overlapping one another. They are, each of them brought upon running bills of account with the steam-tug which was employed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Putnam v. Lower
...Point Fish Co. v. Haywood, 4 Cir., 1940, 109 F.2d 703, and cases collected at page 705; The Young America, D.C., 30 F. 789, 790; The Grapeshot, D.C., 22 F. 123. 29 Vlavianos v. The Cypress, 4 Cir., 1948, 171 F.2d 435, 30 1 Benedict on Admiralty, 5th Ed., p. 709. 31 Old Point Fish Co. v. Hay......
-
Old Point Fish Co. v. Haywood
...to liens against a vessel in custodia legis. See The Young America (D.C.) 30 F. 789, 790; The Nisseqogue (D.C.) 280 F. 174, 181; The Grapeshot (D.C.) 22 F. 123. Cf. New York Dock Co. v. The Poznan, 274 U.S. 117, 47 S.Ct. 482, 71 L.Ed. 955." In Collie v. Fergusson, it was held that seamen, e......
-
Collie v. Fergusson
...liens against a vessel in custodia legis. See The Young America (D. C.) 30 F. 789, 790; The Nisseqogue (D. C.) 280 F. 174, 181; The Grapeshot (D. C.) 22 F. 123. Cf. New York Dock Co. v. The Poznan, 274 U. S. 117, 47 S. Ct. 482, 71 L. Ed. But the increased payment for waiting time is not den......
-
THE WILLIAM LEISHEAR
...A. M. C. 840; Gerber v. Spencer (C. C. A.) 278 F. 886. That wage claims precede repair and supply liens is well established. The Grapeshot (D. C.) 22 F. 123; The G. F. Brown (D. C.) 24 F. 399; The Philomena (D. C.) 200 F. 873. Wage claims also precede wharfage. Provost v. The Selkirk, 20 Fe......