The William H. Bailey
| Decision Date | 20 July 1900 |
| Citation | 103 F. 799 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
| Parties | THE WILLIAM H. BAILEY. |
James D. Dewell, Jr., for claimant.
Watrous & Day, for libelant.
Exceptions by claimants to report of commissioner awarding $2,500 damages to libelant; being the amount claimed in the libel for cost of repairs to libelant's vessel, and motion by libelant for the assessment of $1,000, 'in the nature of exemplary damages, to compensate libelant for expenses in this case. ' The facts herein, and the questions of law arising thereon, are discussed in 100 F. 115.
There are four exceptions to the report. The first is so general that it need not be considered. The third exception was not supported by any objection taken on the trial, and is overruled. The fourth exception is on the ground that the commissioner sat outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court. This exception is overruled on the authority of In re Spofford (C.C.) 62 F. 443; Consolidated Fastener Co. v. Columbian Button & Fastener Co. (C.C.) 85 F. 54.
The second exception is as follows:
'In that the commissioner finds that the libelant was compelled to send for the cable-repairing steamer Mackay-Bennett lying at Halifax, to pick up and repair the cable, and that the average running daily expense of said Mackay-bennett in 1898 was $226.80; in 1899 it was $256.90; her insurance a day was $53.70; the coal cost $511.70 on the trip.'
The point of this objection is that certain books and vouchers were produced by the libelant, but that there was no evidence on the part of the persons who originally made the entries therein as to their correctness, and that the absence of said persons was not accounted for. This objection is not properly raised by the exception. Furthermore, the libelant introduced other sufficient evidence which showed the charge per day for the use of the steamer Mackay-Bennett, and the rental value of such a vessel. But, irrespective of these considerations there is no force in the exception. The evidence from the books was not introduced for the purpose of proving an account, but in order to show the earnings of the vessel prior to the collision, in accordance with the ordinary practice in such cases. The Conqueror, 166 U.S. 110, 127, 17 Sup.Ct. 510, 41 L.Ed. 937. The second exception is overruled.
On his motion for punitive damages, libelant cites The Amiable Nancy, 3 Wheat. 546, 4 L.Ed. 456; Gallagher v. The Yankee, Hoff. Op. 456, Fed. Cas. No. 5,196; Publishing Co. v. Monroe, 19 C.C.A. 429, 73 F. 196; The Mascotte (D.C.) 72 F. 684; The Normannia (D.C.) 62 F 469. These cases do not support his contention. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Usher v. M/V Ocean Wave
... ... as security for actual damages for the wrong done, for which the ship herself is bound to make compensation." 927 F.2d at 496 (quoting The William H. Bailey, 103 F. 799 (D.Conn.1900), aff'd, 111 F. 1006 (2d Cir.1901)). Kristi Usher, in contrast, claims compensation for actual damage she ... ...
-
Silva v. M/V First Lady, 97-0718 JM(CGA).
... ... Id. quoting In The William H. Bailey, 103 F. 799 (D.Conn.1900), aff'd mem., 111 F. 1006 (2d Cir.1901) ... As such, neither Labor Code § 203, which imposes a ... ...
-
The Toledo
... ... 169] ... 31 F. 827; Albina Ferry Co. v. The Imperial (D.C.) ... 38 F. 614, 3 L.R.A. 234; The City of Richmond (D.C.) 43 F ... 85; The William H. Bailey, 103 F. 799, affirmed 111 F. 1006, ... 50 C.C.A. 76; The Anita Berwind (D.C.) 107 F. 721. There are ... two recent cases in which the ... ...
-
Hunley v. Ace Maritime Corp.
... ... In The William H. Bailey, 103 F. 799 (D.Conn.1900), aff'd mem., 111 F. 1006 (2d Cir.1901), it was held that: ... in a proceeding in rem the offending thing can[not] ... ...