The Thomas Sherlock
| Decision Date | 01 August 1884 |
| Citation | 22 F. 253 |
| Parties | THE THOMAS SHERLOCK. [1] |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio |
Bateman & Harper, for libelants and sundry intervenors.
Moulton Johnson & Levy, Wm. H. Jones, Lincoln & Stephens, and Rankin D. Jones, for sundry intervenors.
SAGE J., (orally.)
This cause is before the court on the application of sundry intervenors for a final distribution of the fund in the registry, which, it seems, is not sufficient to pay all the claims in full. All the undisputed claims being clearly maritime in their character, and being shown by the testimony to be correct, are hereby allowed, and I proceed to consider the only claims which have been disputed.
The claim of Parker, Wise & So. consists of two parts: First $2,733.40 on a running account for stores furnished the boat in her home port from May 13, 1882, up to the date of her seizure, in June, 1883; second, $1,053, moneys advanced the boat to defray her navigating expenses. I am satisfied, from an examination of the testimony, that this claim is correct. It has been urged, however, that no lien exists in favor of the advances made by these intervenors, and the attention of the court has been drawn to the case of The Guiding Star, 9 F. 521, in support of this position. That case, clearly, is not applicable here. In that case the testimony showed that the advances were made for meeting what the master called 'the general expenses of the boat. ' These expenses included a variety of claims: some maritime, and entitled to liens; others, non-maritime, and having, therefore, no liens. The testimony further showed that the parties making the advances were aware that the same were being applied to these miscellaneous claims, and the master was unable, excepting in one instance, to state how much of each advance had been applied to pay maritime claims, and how much to non-maritime claims. For this reason the court refused to declare a lien in favor of advances made under such circumstances, but stated that had the testimony shown what specific portion of such 'general expenses' was maritime, a lien to that extent would have been declared. This we consider to be the correct rule in admiralty.
In the case at bar, however, no such difficulty exists. The testimony shows specifically to what purposes the advances made by Parker, Wise & Co., were applied. These purposes were all maritime in their character, entitled under the state water-craft law (which is recognized in admiralty) to liens and the advances made for these purposes are entitled liens of the same rank and character as the purposes themselves. The claim of the Eureka Insurance Company is for $1,500 advanced under the following circumstances: Jesse K. Bell was the boat's agent at New Orleans for the purpose of collecting freight, and of soliciting trade for her. Capt. Nichols, in order to meet the ordinary running expenses of the boat, had, when at Cincinnati, overdrawn on Bell to the amount of $1,500. Bell, a few weeks afterwards, drew on Nichols for that amount, and the latter, in order to meet this draft, borrowed $1,500 from the Eureka Insurance Company, of Cincinnati, giving the boat's note for the same. It is contended that for a loan made under such circumstances no lien exists in admiralty. In this proposition I cannot...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Willamette Valley
... ... advanced to a master to enable him to purchase supplies at a ... foreign port gives one a lien therefor upon the vessel ... Thomas v. Osborn, 19 How. 22; The Emily Souder, 17 ... Wall. 666; The Lulu, 10 Wall. 192; The Neversink, 5 Blatchf ... 539, Fed. Cas. No. 10,133; The ... for necessaries,'-- citing The Tangier, 2 Low. 7, Fed ... Ca. No. 13,744; The Thomas Sherlock, 22 F. 253 ... Again, ... the author says: ... 'All ... advances of money made to pay off claims of a maritime nature ... ...
-
Lake U. Drydock Co. v. M/V POLAR VIKING
... ... v. C/B MR. KIM, 345 F.2d 45, 52 (5th Cir.1965) ... 32 See, e. g., THE MORNING STAR, 1 F.2d 410 (W.D.Wash.1924); THOMAS SHERLOCK, 22 F. 253 (S.D.Ohio 1884) ... 33 See Czaplicki v. S.S. HOEGH SILVER CLOUD, 351 U.S. 525, 533, 76 S.Ct. 946, 100 ... ...
-
The Zillah May
... ... May, all in the sum of about ten thousand eight hundred ... dollars ($10,800.00), of which said sum the said Etta Davis, ... Thomas Randles, and Hannah Randles, his wife, are and should ... be bound to pay about the sum of thirty-six hundred dollars ... ($3,600.00); that from ... admiralty court. The J. A. Brown, Fed. Cas. No. 7,118; The ... Emma B. (D.C.) 140 F. 771; The Thomas Sherlock (D.C.) 22 F ... 253; The John E. Mulford (D.C.) 18 F. 455; The Larch, Fed ... Cas. No. 8,085. In The Willamette Valley (D.C.) 76 F. 838, ... ...
-
Norfolk Sand & Cement Co. v. Owen
... ... Cas. No. 84; The Chusan, Fed. Cas. No. 2,717; ... Coburn v. Insurance Co. (C.C.) 20 F. 644; The J. W ... Tucker (D.C.) 20 F. 133; The Thomas Sherlock (D.C.) 22 F ... 253; The Young America (D.C.) 30 F. 789; The Robert Gaskin ... (D.C.) 9 F. 62; The Alfred J. Murray (D.C.) 60 F. 926; The ... ...