The Highland Light

• Decision Date: 25 June 1898
• Citation: 88 F. 296
• Court: United States District Court, District of Washington, Northern Division
• Parties: THE HIGHLAND LIGHT. v. BARNESON et al. THE OCCIDENTAL. TOWNSLEY

88 F. 296

THE HIGHLAND LIGHT. THE OCCIDENTAL. TOWNSLEY v. BARNESON et al.

United States District Court, D. Washington, Northern Division.

June 25, 1898

Harold Preston, for cross libelant.

Wm. H Gorham, for respondents.

HANFORD District Judge.

This cause has been heard upon an application by the cross libelant for an order requiring the firm of Barneson &amp Chilcott, who are original libelants in several suits in rem against the bark Highland Light and the ship Occidental, to give security for the payment of any judgment which may be recovered by the cross libelant, as provided by the fifty-third admiralty rule, prescribed by the supreme court and also upon exceptions to the cross libel. Barneson &amp Chilcott are suing to collect the amounts which they have earned by their services as stevedores in loading the vessels named, pursuant to a written contract made and entered into by and between said firm and the cross libelant, who is the charterer and manager of said vessels. The cross libelant claims damages for a breach, on the part of the original libelants, or a provision in the same written contract by which the libelants promised and agreed to furnish tug boats for towing the Highland Light and the Occidental into and out of certain ports of Puget Sound, when required, during the time of the life of said contract. The application for security is resisted, and the cross libel is not founded upon any counterclaim arising out of the same cause of action for which the original libels were filed. The libelants insist that, although the written contract provides for services as stevedores in loading the vessels, and also for towage services, it is not a single and entire contract, but that two contracts are contained in one written instrument, and they dispute the right of the cross libelant to file a counterclaim for damages growing out of the transaction under the contract for towage services in a suit to recover compensation for services under the contract for stowing the cargoes.

The fifty-third admiralty rule does not permit new and distinct matters not involved in the issues tendered by an original libel to be the basis of a cross libel, but any cause of action in favor of a party called upon to defend against the original libel founded upon the same contract, or arising out of the same transaction, is a counterclaim which may be set up by a cross libel. A construction must be given to the rule...