United States v. Hall, 85.
| Citation | 63 F. 472 |
| Decision Date | 15 May 1894 |
| Docket Number | 85. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. HALL et al. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit) |
Isaac W. Dyer, for the United States.
William H. Folger and Benjamin Thompson, for appellees.
Before PUTNAM, Circuit Judge, and NELSON and ALDRICH, District Judges.
This is a bill in equity based upon the act of congress of September 19, 1890 (26 Stat. 426), and instituted under the direction of the attorney general of the United States, to compel the defendants to remove the hull of a vessel, which, it is claimed, exists as an obstruction to navigation, in Rockland harbor, on the coast of Maine, and comes by appeal from the circuit court for that district.
The facts are, in substances, as follows: On the 8th of February 1893, the three-masted and double-decked schooner, William H Jones, sailed from Rockland, with a cargo of lime, bound for New York. The next morning, when about 40 miles out, it was discovered that her cargo was on fire, when the vessel was put about, sealed, and headed for the home port, where she might lay at rest in quiet water, and the chances of saving her cargo and vessel be thereby promoted. She proceeded under sail on the homeward voyage as far as Seal harbor, reaching that port about 1 a.m. the following morning, and from thence was towed into Rockland harbor, and anchored off the breakwater, and more carefully sealed, that the fire might be smothered. A little later she was taken to the northerly part of the harbor, a little off the main channel, inside the breakwater, and anchored at a point used for navigation by the lighter class of vessels, and for winter anchorage. At the end of 21 days her cabin doors were opened, but again carefully sealed; and, with careful watching, she remained sealed until March 21st (38 days in all), when, as it was supposed the fire was smothered, arrangements were made to discharge her cargo. Between 3 and 4 o'clock of the same day, from the internal progress of the fire, and without warning, the mizzen mast fell, tearing up the deck, and breaking in the after house. Some of the owners were immediately called on board, and after consultation the vessel was scuttled at the place of anchorage, in 13 or 14 feet of water; the purpose being, according to the testimony of one of the defendants, to save the rigging and spars, and abandon the vessel to the underwriters. She was afterwards condemned by an underwriter's survey, sold at auction and brought in by the owners, who are the defendants in this proceeding, who stripped and abandoned her where she was anchored and scuttled, and where she now remains as an obstruction to anchorage and navigation.
The evidence of the defense tends to show that after the fall of the mast the vessel could not have been towed to deep water, or left to drift into shoal water with the wind, without hazard to the property of others. But such hazard would not attach to the vessel lying and burning at anchor. The scuttling, therefore, was not to avoid peril, or to save the property of others, but to save the rigging, spars, etc., to the owners. From the beginning the effort was to save the property as a whole, and the harbor might well be used in a reasonable manner to that end; but when it was discovered that the vessel and cargo could not be saved, using the harbor of refuge as a scuttling place for the hull, in order to make the slight pecuniary saving which would result from stripping the vessel, under the circumstances of this case, was an unreasonable use of the public waters, and upon the principle of decided cases, involving analogous questions ), the obstruction resulting would constitute a nuisance at the common law, removable upon information by the attorney general.
The defendants also contend that there was a chance, and perhaps a probability, that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Chesapeake & Delaware Shipyard, Inc.
...States v. Wilson, 235 F.2d 251 (2 Cir. 1956); United States v. Bridgeport Towing Line, Inc., 15 F.2d 240 (D.C.Conn.1926); United States v. Hall, 63 F. 472 (1 Cir. 1894). However, this district and the Fourth Circuit have previously expressed an opposite view. In re Eastern Transportation Co......
-
United States v. Bethlehem Steel Corporation
...a channel. The statutes are as silent about this situation as they are about innocently or negligently created obstructions. In United States v. Hall, 63 F. 472 (Cir. 1), a mandatory injunction was granted compelling the owner, in such a case, to remove the wreck. Obviously the court in suc......
-
U.S. v. Padilla
...that a party generally is not permitted to raise a new issue for first time on a petition for rehearing); United States v. Hall, 63 F. 472, 475 (1st Cir.1894) (per curiam) (similar). Because the order convening the en banc court does not encompass the issue that the government now seeks to ......
-
Wyandotte Transportation Company v. United States, 31
...the Government. See, e.g., Mayor, etc. of Georgetown v. Alexandria Canal Co., 12 Pet. 91, 97, 9 L.Ed. 1012 (1838); United States v. Hall, 63 F. 472, 474 (C.A.1st Cir. 1894); The Ella, (1915) P. 111 (1914); Comment, Substantive and Remedial Problems in Preventing Interferences with Navigatio......