The Wilmington
| Decision Date | 25 October 1880 |
| Citation | 48 F. 566 |
| Parties | THE WILMINGTON. v. THE WILMINGTON. WOOD |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
The libelant, Wood, made a contract for the use of the canal-boat Wilmington, which is as follows:
The testimony shows that the libelant's well-known business was to furnish to the grain elevators in the port of Baltimore barges suitable for carrying grain, which they needed when the elevators were full, and which they used principally for storage, and incidentally to carry the grain to ships which they desired to load in different parts of the harbor. This was the purpose for which the barge was to be used in the present case, and was well understood by both parties. The owner of the barge lived in Philadelphia; but the master of the barge, who had brought her to Baltimore, had authority to make the contract. Under this contract her deck was recalked at the libelant's expense, which the master said was all the repairs she required. She then was twice loaded with grain, which she carried across the harbor and discharged into steam-ships. Then she was loaded at one of the elevators, and lay about 10 days, when she began to leak. The grain was taken out of her, uninjured; and her master was told she would not answer, as she was too leaky to carry grain. The master then took her away, had repairs put upon her, and brought her back, saying to libelant that he had found the leak, and fixed it, and now the boat was all right. She was again loaded at one of the elevators, and moved near to another, and there lay eight days, when she sprung a leak in the night-time and damaged her cargo very considerably. It is for this damage, which the libelant had to make good to the elevator company, that he brings this libel against the barge.
After the grain was taken out of her, the master had her hauled on the dry-dock for repairs, when it was found that the oakum was out of her seams in half a dozen places, and he was obliged to have her entirely recalked and repaired. By the contract it was agreed by the master that the boat should be kept in thorough repair; and, from all the testimony, I have no difficulty in finding that the damage resulted from a breach of this agreement. Although the contract recites that Dominick Magrudy was master and owner, he was in truth master only, and Mrs. Magrudy, of Philadelphia, was the owner. She makes claim to the boat; and, besides defenses to the merits and facts of libelant's claim, she denies the jurisdiction of this court to take cognizance of the case, and denies the libelant's right to maintain a proceeding in rem. It is now, however, I think quite well settled that canal-boats, lighters, barges, floating elevators, and similar floating contrivances, used in harbors as instruments of commerce, are, in like manner as sea-going vessels, subjects of admiralty jurisdiction, and that contracts with regard to their employment and repair are maritime contracts, and matters of admiralty cognizance. The Kate Tremaine, 5 Ben. 60; The W. J. Walsh, Id. 72; The E. M. McChesney, 8 Ben. 150; The Floating Elevator Hezekiah Baldwin, Id. 556; The Northern Belle, 9 Wall. 526; Edner v. Greco, 3 Fed.Rep. 411. Under the contract in this case, the canal-boat could have been used for any of the purposes for which such a vessel is suitable; and she was in fact used in two instances to carry grain across the harbor. The fact that the principal use to which it was expected she would be put, and for which she actually was used, was to hold grain on storage until the elevators were relieved, does not, in my judgment, alter the rights of the parties. In Reppert v. Robinson, Taney, 498, it is said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bethlehem Steel Company v. United States
...Without analyzing those cases in detail, a brief summary of them is here set forth: Disbrow v. Walsh Brothers, D.C., 36 F. 607; The Wilmington, D.C., 48 F. 566; The Dick Keys, Fed.Cas.No.3,898; Ex parte Easton, 95 U.S. 68, 24 L.Ed. 373, Barges, without power of self-propulsion, were held to......
-
McRae v. Bowers Dredging Co.
...F. 596; Bywater v. Raft of Piles, 42 F. 917; The City of Pittsburgh, 45 F. 699; The Progresso, 46 F. 292; The St. Louis, 48 F. 313; The Wilmington, 48 F. 566; Stebbins Five Mud Scows, 50 F. 227; Id., 12 C.C.A. 359; 64 F. 495; The Atlantic, 53 F. 607; The Starbuck 61 F. 502; The Public Bath ......
-
United States v. SS Lucie Schulte
...have so applied it. The Euripides, 52 F. 161 (S.D.N.Y.1892), modified on other grounds, 71 F. 728 (2 Cir. 1896); see The Wilmington, 48 F. 566, 568 (D.Md. 1880); Price, Maritime Liens 146 The serious questions are whether and, if so, how "the general owner" can effectively negate the "just ......
-
State ex rel. Leggett v. Sovran Leasing Corp.
...been considered vessels in caselaw for over a hundred years. Disbrow v. The Walsh Brothers, 36 F. 607, 608 (S.D.N.Y.1888); The Wilmington, 48 F. 566, 567 (D.Md.1880). Federal statutes defining "vessels" are also interpreted to include barges. Under the title regulating shipping within the U......