United States v. Jardine, 7919.
| Decision Date | 26 December 1935 |
| Docket Number | No. 7919.,7919. |
| Citation | 81 F.2d 745 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. JARDINE. THE CACOETHES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
J. Frank Staley, Atty., Department of Justice, of Washington, D. C., John W. Holland, U. S. Atty., of Jacksonville, Fla., and W. Sanders Gramling, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Miami, Fla., for the United States.
Willard M. Harris, of Philadelphia, Pa., and Walter Carroll, of New Orleans, La., for appellee.
Before SIBLEY, HUTCHESON, and WALKER, Circuit Judges.
This appeal concerns the libel of the gas screw Cacoethes, a public vessel of the United States. It is from a decree establishing a maritime lien for $2,391.38 and condemning the vessel for its payment. When seized under the writ of attachment, the Cacoethes was in the actual physical possession of the United States, being employed as a coast guard vessel in the customs service.
The libel alleged that while the vessel was in the port of Atlantic City, N. J., under libel proceedings in a cause of forfeiture brought by the United States in the District Court of the District of New Jersey, libelant had furnished her with labor, repairs, supplies, and material at the owner's request, and that the sum sued for was still due. Further pleading with some fullness the proceedings in the New Jersey District Court and the basis of appellee's lien claim, libellant asserted that the possession and claim of title of the United States was wrongful. He asserted, too, that in any event it held its title and possession in subordination to libelant's lien and subject to its satisfaction.
Appearing specially to contest the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the libel and to seize a public vessel in its possession, the United States moved for the vacation of the attachment and the release of the vessel. These motions were overruled. Subject to them, and reserving all questions of jurisdiction, the United States answered. It denied the charges of the libel that the vessel was subject to the admiralty jurisdiction of the United States Court for the Southern District of Florida, denied that the vessel had been wrongfully awarded to the United States in the New Jersey court, and denied that libelant had any equitable claim. It pleaded the decree of the New Jersey court dismissing libelant's petition of intervention as res adjudicata of his claim.
The District Judge, ruling out all defenses, found for libelant. While appellant presents alternatively all of the defenses urged below, it urges the jurisdictional question as determinative of this appeal.
We agree. The Western Maid, 257 U. S. 419, 433, 42 S.Ct. 159, 161, 66 L.Ed. 299. It is a principle of force in admiralty law as well as common law, in fact, one of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ervin v. Quintanilla
...purporting to be, but in fact not lawfully acting for it. United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 1 S.Ct. 240, 27 L.Ed. 171; United States v. Jardine, 5 Cir., 81 F.2d 745. As to the prayer that the libel be dismissed, certainly no invocation of jurisdiction can be made out of this. The libel wa......
-
Aqua Log, Inc. v. Georgia
...likewise held a foreign government cannot claim sovereign immunity with respect to a vessel not in its possession. See United States v. Jardine, 81 F.2d 745 (5th Cir.1935); The Carlo Poma, 259 F. 369 (2d Cir.1919) (rev'd on other grounds 255 U.S. 219, 41 S.Ct. 309, 65 L.Ed. 594); The Attual......
-
THE MANUEL ARNUS
...Dry Docks, Inc., at Galveston. Under these circumstances, such vessel is not amenable to process of this Court. United States v. Jardine, 5 Cir., 81 F.2d 745, 746; The Western Maid, 257 U. S. 419, 42 S.Ct. 159, 66 L.Ed. 299; 46 U.S.C.A. § 741 et seq. 2. If the facts are as set forth by Libe......
-
THE MV BULL CALF, 4453.
...action resulting from its destruction. "The personality of a public vessel is merged in that of the sovereign." See United States v. Jardine, 5 Cir., 81 F.2d 745, 746. Manifestly the right of possession at least was in the libelant and the right of action for destruction of a vessel follows......