United States v. Daniels Towing & Drydock
| Decision Date | 09 August 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 14597.,14597. |
| Citation | 214 F.2d 501 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. DANIELS TOWING & DRYDOCK, Inc. et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
William T. Foley, Jr., Atty., Dept. of Justice, Leavenworth Colby, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Admiralty & Shipping Section, Washington, D. C., Fred Botts, Asst. U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., Warren E. Burger, Asst. Atty. Gen., James L. Guilmartin, U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., for appellant.
Robert F. Underwood, Miami, Fla., Martin Sack, Jacksonville, Fla., Alexander S. Gordon, Knight, Smith & Underwood, Miami Beach, Fla., for appellee.
Before STRUM, and RIVES, Circuit Judges, and DAWKINS, District Judge.
This is an amended libel by Daniels Towing and Drydock, Inc. against East Coast Shipping Co., Inc., the bareboat charterer of certain Navy barges, for which its trustee in bankruptcy was substituted, and against the United States of America, the owner of the barges, the libel being based on a contract for towage services. Two principal questions are presented for decision by this Court: (1), whether the district court had power to refer the entire case to a special commissioner for findings and conclusions thereafter adopted by the court; and (2), whether, under the evidence, the United States became liable for the towage services. We pretermit decision of the first question, because we are of the opinion, for reasons hereafter stated, that, regardless of the method of trial, the second question must be answered in the negative.
On about June 1, 1950, Elmore Daniels, as president of Daniels Towing and Drydock, Inc., hereafter called Daniels, and Louis Berger, the then president of East Coast, entered into an oral contract for Daniels to tow the barges designated as YC-847, YC-848, and YC-849 from Cape May, New Jersey, to Miami, Florida. East Coast agreed to pay Daniels $3,000.00 in consideration of Daniels sending its tug, Marion Adele, from Miami to pick up the three barges and to return with them to Miami. A tug owned by East Coast was to tow three other similar barges. On the trip North, the accompanying tug of East Coast broke down and the Marion Adele towed it to Wilmington, North Carolina for repair, occasioning a delay of eight days. A further delay of four days was encountered at Cape May, New Jersey, awaiting the arrival of a third large ocean-going tug towing the six Navy barges from the Brooklyn Navy Yard. Daniels and Berger had a supplemental agreement that Daniels would be compensated for the aggregate twelve day delay at $75.00 per day, or $900.00. East Coast failed to meet Daniels' demand for payment of the $3,900.00, and this libel ensued. There is no question but that East Coast became liable for the $3,900.00 towage services. The decisive question is whether the United States also became liable.
There is a direct conflict in the testimony as to whether Daniels knew from the beginning that the barges it was engaged to tow belonged to the United States. Berger testified that he told Daniels that the barges were at the Brooklyn Navy Yard and were being leased from the Navy. Daniels testified, on the other hand, that Berger told him East Coast had purchased the six barges, that its tug would tow three and he wanted Daniels to tow three of the barges to Miami. We proceed upon the assumption, under the trial court's findings, that Daniels was the one who told the truth. Daniels admitted, however, that in prior dealings with Berger, he had heard that Berger had chartered other barges from the Navy.1 He also knew that Berger had been put out of the barge line business by the two people who had gone into the business with him, and had met financial reverses earlier in the same year, 1950. Daniels had nothing on which to rely as to the ownership of the barges other than the bare statement from Berger that East Coast had bought the barges. He made no request to see the bill of sale, and, in fact, no inquiries whatever concerning the alleged claim of purchase.2
Daniels personally never did see the Navy barges. His employees first saw the barges and their markings when they took the barges in tow at Cape May. At that time the words "U S Navy" were painted on the barges in letters three feet high, and together with the Navy numbers and symbols were clearly visible and were, in fact, observed by the Captain and crew of Daniels' tug. Even after such notice, no further inquiry was made as to the ownership of the barges. Daniels' employee Emery admitted:
The charter party provided:
The barges, however, were open barges with no place provided for papers,3 and East Coast did not post the notice as it had agreed.
The libellant answered "No" to the following interrogatory:
"Tenth: Please state whether libelant or any of its officers, employees or agents made or caused to be made any inquiries as to what agreement the lighters YC-847, YC-848 and YC-849 were being operated under at the time the towage services and assistance mentioned in the libel and complaint, as amended, and Schedule A, annexed thereto, are alleged to have been requested and rendered."
If it be assumed that these Navy barges owned by the United States were employed as merchant vessels when the towage was performed, still the United States would be liable for the towage only if a vessel privately owned and possessed would be liable under the same facts and circumstances. 46 U.S. C.A. § 742. A person furnishing towage would have a maritime lien on the barges, if privately owned, only if such towage were procured by an authorized person, 46 U.S.C.A. §§ 971, 972, and reasonable diligence to ascertain such authority is required of the person furnishing such towage.4 On the facts taken most favorably to Daniels, and under cases decided on similar facts,5 we think it clear that no maritime lien for towage would have attached to the barges had they been privately owned, and, hence, that the United States did not become liable for the towage services.
The judgment is, therefore, reversed and the cause remanded with directions to dismiss the libel as against the United States. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 2106.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
I agree with the ruling on the first point stated in the opinion of the majority, but dissent as to the second.
The record reveals that the charter party under which East Coast acquired possession of the barges, provides:
Before the hearing, Proctor for the Government propounded to the libelant a series of interrogatories as to the circumstances under which it was engaged to tow the barges to Miami. They were answered by its President, Elmore Daniels, the pertinent portions of which are quoted in footnote.1
It is insisted that libelant, through its president in response to interrogatory No. 10, admitted that it had not made any inquiries as to what the agreement was under which the barges were to be operated, at the time the towing contract was made. However, if the sworn answers by Daniels to the earlier interrogatories that Louis Berger, president of East Coast Company, had informed him that this company had purchased the barges, were true, then it follows that there was no occasion for the further inquiry contained in interrogatory No. 10. It did not mean that he, Daniels, had said no inquiry as to the ownership had been made. On the contrary, the interrogatories and answers quoted in footnote were to the effect Daniels did inquire as to the ownership, and the matter depends upon the sufficiency of that inquiry, in the light of the circumstances surrounding the towage agreement.
In the first place, there was nothing in writing and the entire arrangements, both in the original...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
SS Omnium Freighter v. Northwest Marine Ironworks, Inc.
...1 F.2d 233, 238, 239; Pascagoula Dock Station v. Merchants & Marine Bank, 5 Cir., 1959, 271 F.2d 53, 55; United States v. Daniels Towing & Drydock, 5 Cir., 1954, 214 F.2d 501. In Lindbar, supra, 276 F.2d at page 886, the court "There were a number of avenues of inquiry or of investigation o......
-
Diaz v. The SS Seathunder
...973 applies with equal force to towage as to repairs, supplies or other necessaries is to be found in United States v. Daniels Towing and Drydock, Inc., 5 Cir., 1954, 214 F.2d 501, 503; Dalzell Towing Company, Inc. v. J. W. Hennessy, Inc., 2 Cir., 1932, 57 F.2d 77, 78-79. The court finds th......
-
Ocean Cargo Lines, Ltd. v. North Atlantic Marine Co.
...of the vessel, see Lindbar, Inc. v. St. Louis Fuel & Supply Co., 276 F.2d 882, 885-86 (6 Cir. 1960); United States v. Daniels Towing & Drydock, Inc., 214 F.2d 501, 502-03 (5 Cir. 1954); The Kongo, 155 F.2d 492, 495-96 (6 Cir. 1946); Gilmore and Black, op. cit. supra at 567, but, in any even......
-
Walsh Stevedoring Co. v. Slagen
...Corp. v. Towboat Z-Fourteen, 214 F. Supp. 849 (W.D.La., 1961), affirmed 316 F.2d 238 (5th Cir., 1963); United States v. Daniels Towing & Drydock, Inc., 214 F.2d 501 (5th Cir., 1954); Findley v. Red Top Super Markets, 188 F.2d 834 (5th Cir.); The Western Wave, 77 F.2d 695 (5th ...