United States v. Voelp
| Decision Date | 05 February 1924 |
| Docket Number | 2122. |
| Citation | 296 F. 119 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. VOELP et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
A. W W. Woodcock, U.S. Atty., and James T. Carter, Asst. U.S Atty., both of Baltimore, Md.
Edwin F. A. Morgan, Emory H. Niles, and John H. Skeen, all of Baltimore, Md. (John G. Schlipp, James B. Diggs, Bernard S Gibson, Marbury, Gosnell & Williams, George Weems Williams and Henry W. Schultheis, all of Baltimore, Md., on the brief), for appellees.
Before WOODS and WADDILL, Circuit Judges, and SOPER, District Judge.
On November 16, 1920, the United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation made a conditional sale of 'one incomplete Ferris type wood hull No. 129,' called 'Caskata,' to the Northern Transportation Company. The price was $40,000, of which $27,000 was unpaid when this litigation began. By the contract title was retained in the seller until the payment of the purchase money. The buyer agreed to keep the property free from all liens and incumbrances. The hull was laid by the Shipping Board for a steamship. The buyer decided to change the plan and to use the hull in the construction of a coastwise barge. For this purpose it placed the hull in the hands of the Diebert Barge Building Company at Havre de Grace, Md. Upon the insolvency of the Northern Transportation Company the Diebert Barge Building Company filed a libel, claiming a lien for its work. The United States intervened, setting up its claim of $27,000 of unpaid purchase money. The District Court sustained the position of the government, that the libelant was not entitled to a lien on the ground that the work done was in construction, and not repairs. The decree was affirmed by this court May 1, 1923 (Deibert Barge-Bldg. Co. v. United States, 289 F. 805), on the ground stated in the opinion of the District Court, and on the additional ground that the libelant had used no diligence to ascertain the fact that under its contract of purchase the Northern Transportation Company was forbidden to create a lien. United States v. Carver et al., 260 U.S. 482, 43 Sup.Ct. 181, 67 L.Ed. 361.
From Havre de Grace the Caskata, now called Northern Barge 44, was towed to Baltimore. A number of creditors intervened in the Diebert libel, claiming liens for necessaries furnished the barge in Baltimore-- some for material, some for labor, the city of Baltimore for wharfage, and the Baltimore Transportation Company for towage from Havre de Grace to Baltimore. The claims were allowed as liens by the District Court in preference to the claim of the government, by decree dated October 7, 1922, before the decision in the Carver Case.
We shall not disturb the finding of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Interstate Tractor & Equipment Co. v. The Mylark
...482, 43 S.Ct. 181, 67 L.Ed. 361, and by the following cases, all of which adhere to the rule laid down in the Carver case: United States v. Voelp, 4 Cir., 296 F. 119. The Westhaven, D. C., 297 F. 534, affirmed Old Dominion S. S. Co. v. U. S., 4 Cir., 3 F.2d 1021, Standard Oil Co. v. U. S., ......
-
THE SW SOMERS
...of the act has been frequently applied in this circuit. Deibert Barge Building Co. v. United States (C. C. A.) 289 F. 805; United States v. Voelp (C. C. A.) 296 F. 119; Standard Oil Co. v. United States (C. C. A.) 1 F.(2d) 961; Frey & Son v. United States (C. C. A.) 1 F.(2d) 963; The Libera......
-
The Buckhannon
...with directions to ascertain libelant's damages. --------- Notes: [1] The Northern No. 44, 1923 A.M.C., 622; Id. (C.C.A.) 296 F. 119, 1924 A.M.C. 541; Princess Matoika, 1924 A.M.C. 303. [2] Deibert v. United States (C.C.A.) 289 F. 805; The Hoxie, 1923 A.M.C. 937. --------- ...