United States v. Pinckney, 546.
| Decision Date | 05 April 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 546.,546. |
| Citation | 150 F. Supp. 790 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Libellant, v. E. B. PINCKNEY, Sam Adler and Liberty Plumbing Supply and Salvage Co., Inc., Respondents. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia |
William C. Calhoun, U. S. Atty., Augusta, Ga., and Joseph B. Bergen, Asst. U. S. Atty., Savannah, Ga., for plaintiff.
Clyde A. Eltzroth, Hampton, S. C., and John J. Hennessy, Savannah, Ga., for defendant, E. B. Pinckney.
Robert E. Falligant, Savannah, Ga., for defendants, Sam Adler and the Liberty Plumbing Supply and Salvage Co., Inc.
The libellant in the above-styled case, United States of America, filed a libel of information in personam against the captioned respondents alleging that the respondents were owners of an unnamed, uninspected, undocumented, open hull barge which parted from its mooring due to the fault and negligence of the respondents in failing to exercise due diligence in securing the said barge resulting in its becoming adrift and derelict. The libellant further alleged that while the instant barge was so adrift and derelict it collided with and destroyed a lower flats range front light belonging to the United States Government, a channel marker and navigational aid, stationarily fixed in the Savannah River within this district. The libellant prayed for damages from respondents in the amount of $1,085.21, representing $701.21 as costs of materials used to replace the aforesaid marker and $384 labor.
The respondents each filed a motion to dismiss entitled "Exceptions" to the libellant's action averring: that the facts in the libel are insufficient to constitute a cause of action; that the facts do not constitute a cause of action within the Admiralty and Maritime jurisdiction of this court; and, that the allegations in the said libel fail to show the nature or extent of respondents' alleged ownership of the aforesaid barge.
Subsequently, the respondents, Sam Adler and Liberty Plumbing Supply and Salvage Co., Inc., each filed a timely answer denying each and every allegation of the libel or requiring strict proof thereof. The respondent, E. B. Pinckney, denied ownership of the said barge and thus disclaimed liability.
The issue thus being joined, a hearing was held by this Court sitting in Admiralty without a jury with all parties present, and evidence was introduced by the libellant to establish the complete destruction of the marker in question by the instant barge and the costs of its replacement. The libellant also introduced evidence to establish that the barge immediately prior to becoming derelict was insecurely moored by the respondent, E. B. Pinckney, on property controlled by the said E. B. Pinckney. The libellant introduced further evidence to establish that the barge had been sold either to the respondent, Sam Adler or Liberty Plumbing Supply and Salvage Co., Inc., just prior to its possession by the respondent, E. B. Pinckney, and that the respondent, Sam Adler, individually, or as an officer of the Liberty Plumbing Supply and Salvage Co., Inc., had privity and knowledge of the actions of the respondent, E. B. Pinckney.
The respondent, Sam Adler, admitted that he had owned the barge at one time but introduced evidence to establish that he had transferred title over to respondent, E. B. Pinckney, just prior to the mooring of the barge by the said E. B. Pinckney at the time mentioned.
The respondent, E. B. Pinckney, denied that he had ever owned the barge and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Petition of M/V Elaine Jones
...taken would leave Terminal in a significantly worse economic position than before the accident. The case is similar to U. S. v. Pinckney, 150 F.Supp. 790 (S.D.Ga.1957), where depreciation was applied to reduce recoverable replacement costs of only those components of a demolished marker bea......
-
Rawls Brothers Contractors, Inc. v. United States
...and navigational aids. General American Transp. Corp. v. The Patricia Chotin (E.D.La.1954), 120 F.Supp. 246; United States v. Pinckney (S.D.Ga. 1957), 150 F.Supp. 790; Patterson Terminals, Inc. v. S. S. Johannes Frans (E.D.Pa.1962), 209 F.Supp. 705; Atkins v. Alabama Drydock & Shipbuilding ......
-
United States v. Tug Otto, 66-G-12.
...of the damage or loss. See Rawls Bros. Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 251 F. Supp. 47, 57 (M.D.Fla.1966); United States v. Pinckney, 150 F.Supp. 790, 792 (S.D.Ga.1957).5 The government, however, offered no testimony as to the age or useful life of the twenty-four Willard batteries alle......
-
National Distillers & Chemical Corp. v. Federal Barge Lines, Inc.
...wharf is replacement value minus depreciation (Patterson Terminals, Inc. v. S. S. Johannes Frans, D.C., 209 F.Supp. 705, United States v. Pinckney, D.C., 150 F.Supp. 790, General American Transp. Corp. v. The Patricia Chotin, D.C., 120 F.Supp. 246), that the pile cluster here involved was d......