The West Hartland

• Decision Date: 21 September 1923
• Docket Number: 6426.
• Citation: 295 F. 547
• Parties: THE WEST HARTLAND.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington

295 F. 547

THE WEST HARTLAND.

No. 6426.

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

September 21, 1923

Bronson Robinson & Jones, of Seattle, Wash., for petitioner.

Huffer Hayden & Bucey, and Grosscup & Morrow, all of Seattle, Wash Sawyer & Cluff, of San Francisco, Cal., and Bogle, Merrit &amp Bogle, of Seattle, Wash., for claimants.

NETERER District Judge.

The mere delay in the surrender may not be treated as an assumption of the liability of the vessel, and forfeiture of right to limitation. The Benefactor, 103 U.S. 247, 26 L.Ed. 466. Was the value of the interest of the petitioner at the time of the surrender less than at the close of the voyage? The City of Norwich, 118 U.S. 468, 6 Sup.Ct. 1150, 30 L.Ed. 134. Did the delayed surrender result in prejudice to creditors by reason of which they did not recover the amount or value of the interest of the owner, etc.? Both questions must be answered in the negative. The testimony is all in practical agreement that the market value was not greater at the date of the collision than at any time prior to or at surrender. The vessel was not used for the owner's profit, was not navigated, but was at all times carefully guarded and kept at the port of Seattle in the best of care. There is no claim of physical deterioration. After the collision the vessel was a helpless wreck; at surrender it was fit for the sea. If the owner has surrendered the full value of its interest in the vessel on the date of collision, liability may be limited. The Alpena (D.C.) 8 F. 280; The Rose Culkin (D.C.) 52 F. 328; The Puritan (D.C.) 94 F. 365; The Scotland, 105 U.S. 24, 26 L.Ed. 1001; The Columbia, 73 F. 226, 19 C.C.A. 436; In re Morrison, 147 U.S. 14, 13 Sup.Ct. 246, 37 L.Ed. 60.

It is contended by claimants that the market was controlled by the petitioner, who monopolized it by withdrawing all ships of the type of the West Hartland from the market, and therefore there was no market, and hence no market value. This contention has no force. Conceding for the moment there is such testimony (there being none), common sense and common experience teaches that to withdraw from sale a commodity increases the demand, and enhances the market value. The rule of reproductive costs contended for by the claimant cannot be invoked upon the record in this case. Alaska S.S. Co. v. Inland Nav. Co., 211 F. 840, 128 C.C.A. 366. There was a market value. and there was no diminution of that value from April 1st, the date of the collision, to December 2nd, the date of the surrender. An analysis or discussion of the evidence with relation to the market value can serve no purpose. Whether the petitioner shall recover any portion expended for the repairs need not now be determined. The pending freight was surrendered upon order of the court when the amount was ascertained. The Passaic (D.C.) 190 F. 644; The Defender (D.C.) 214 F. 316; The Rochester (D.C.) 230 F. 519.

There can be no question as to the seaworthiness of the West Hartland at the time in issue.

Upon the question of exemption from all liability the testimony is confusing, some entirely inconsistent; but common experience of the ordinary landsman suggests that these vessels should not have collided. The facts conceded are that the vessels collided at about 12:04 1/2 a.m.; they approached on a diagonal crossing course, supra, the West Hartland being the privileged vessel; that one blast from the West Hartland was answered by three blasts from the Governor; that the navigating officer of each ship saw the lights of the other when they were at least two miles apart; that they were each in the open waters of Puget Sound; the view was unobstructed; there was a slight mist; the atmosphere was clear; all aids to navigation were visible; both vessels were moving forward at the time of collision, the Governor on starboard helm. I also think it is established that the Governor could stop from full speed ahead, on full speed astern, within three lengths of the vessel, or approximately 1,200 feet in 1 1/2 minutes or less. She was moving 1,500 feet a minute, at the time of the one blast, and was therefore within 1,500 feet of the West Hartland when the one blast was given.

The testimony of all of the witnesses with relation to the time between the various blasts and acts is based on approximation. There is only one witness who, from his testimony, looked at the clock, which was at 12:04 1/2 12:03, 12:02. This witness says he looked at the clock, and the one blast was given about 12:02, and the three blasts about 12:03, and the order for full speed astern by the West Hartland was given at 12:03. The witness confessed he could not give the exact time of things which he saw or heard while on the bridge, as he had to go into the pilot house to see the clock, so that all the testimony with relation to time has an element of approximation. All of the witnesses testified that the one blast, three blasts, and collision were almost simultaneous. The engineer of the West Hartland testified that the one blast and order for full speed astern were given simultaneously, as nearly as may be, and he cannot tell which was given first. The second assistant engineer of the Governor says the one...