MERRITT & CHAPMAN DERRICK & WRECKING COMPANY
v.
UNITED STATES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Merritt & Chapman Derrick & Wrecking Company sued the United States for salvage compensation under the Tucker Act, claiming it had prevented the Steamship Leviathan from being damaged during a major pier fire by fighting the flames at and around Pier 5. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the claim, holding that salvage cannot be recovered for indirect or incidental benefit to a vessel, absent the vessel's request for or acceptance of assistance, and that the company's firefighting efforts, though beneficial to the Leviathan, were directed primarily at saving the pier and other property rather than at rendering direct aid to the ship itself.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Butler delivered the opinion of the Court.
Plaintiff in error sued under the Tucker Act, c. 359, 24 Stat. 505, upon a claim for salvage on account of seWice alleged to have been rendered the Steamship Leviathan owned by the defendant in error. United States v. Cornell Steamboat Co., 202 U. S. 184, 189. On defendant’s motion the court, May 7,. 1925, dismissed the petition on the ground that it fails to state a cause of action. The case is here on writ of error to that court. J. Homer Fritch, Inc. v. United States, 248 U. S. 458.
, The petition alleges the following. August 24-25, 1921, at Hoboken, there was a fierce and extensive fire on Pier 5. The Leviathan lay bow in at the south side of Pier 4. She could not be towed out. She had only a skeleton erew, and it would have required a large njimber to man her and many hours of preparation to get up sufficient steam and move her by means of her own engines. The firé started at half after six in the evening and was not extinguished until seven in the morning. A part of the time it covered the whole length of Pier 5, the bulkhead and adjacent houses. The wind was from the south and tended to carry the fire across the slip and onto the Leviathan. Her port side was considerably scorched, and several times fire broke out on her superstructure. Ammunition was stored in a building near the bulkhead, and the possibility of an explosion added to the danger. Plaintiff's steamers Commissioner and Chapman Brothers were powerful boats, specially built, equipped and manned for salvage and fire fighting service. The former from seven until half after nine in the evening and the latter from about seven in the evening until seven in the morning continuously fought the fire. They played heavy streams of water on the burning pier where the fire threatened the Leviathan. And, by way of conclusion, it is stated that “ The service was a direct aid and benefit to the steamer Leviathan in preventing the spread of flames from Pier 5 to that vessel, and had it not been for the said service great damage to, if not total loss of, the said steamship would have resulted.” Limiting the general statement by the specific, in accordance with the context, (United States v. Union Pacific R. Co., 169 Fed. 65, 67, and cases cited) the substance of the allegation is that plaintiff in error, by preventing the spread of the fire from the pier to the Leviathan, rendered her direct aid and benefit.
There is no claim that the Leviathan, ór any one in her behalf, requested or accepted assistance from plaintiff in error, or. that its fireboats played any water on that vessel or did anything to extinguish fire thereon or to give her any assistance other than that involved in fighting the fire on and about Pier 5. The distance between the Leviathan and that fire is not stated, and there is nothing to indicate that she did not have adequate protection from other sources. Indeed, the circumstances disclosed by the petition rather tend to show that she did not need any assistance from plaintiff in error. While salvage cannot be exacted for assistance forced upon a ship (The Bolivar v. The Chalmette, 1 Woods C. C. 397), her request for or express acceptance of the service is not always essential td the validity of the claim. It is enough if under the circumstances any prudent man would have accepted. The Annapolis, (In the Privy Council), Lushington 355, 375. Plaintiff in error claims as a volunteer salvor going at his own risk to the assistance of the ship on the chance of reward in case of success, and not as one employed rendering service for pay according to his effort or the terms of his contract. The Sabine, 101 U. S. 384, 390. It did not communicate with or enter into the service of the Leviathan. Its fireboats did not put water upon her. The fires that started on her were put out by other means. All effort of plaintiff in error was put forth directly for the purpose of extinguishing fire at and about Pier 5 and to save property not at all related to the Leviathan. The elimination of that.fire contributed mediately to her safety. But, whatever the aid or benefit resulting to her, it was incidental and indirect for which, in the absence of request for or acceptance of the service, a claim for salvage cannot be sustained. The Annapolis, supra; The City of Atlanta, 56 Fed. 252, 254; The San Cristobal, 215 Fed. 615; 230 Fed. 599.
Judgment affirmedi
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
U.S. Dominator, Inc. v. Factory Ship Robert E. Resoff, 768 F.2d 1099 (9th Cir. 1985)…istance, and success — were not established. Instead, the defendants assert that the benefits to the Sea Alaska were “indirect” and that Dominator therefore cannot claim a salvage award. In Merritt & Chapman Derrick & Wrecking Co. v. United States, 274 U.S. 611, 613, 47 S.Ct. 663, 664, 71 L.Ed. 1232 (1927), the Court stated that when the benefits from salvage operations are “incidental and indirect,” a salvage claim cannot be sustained “in the absence of request for or acceptance of the service.” The defen…1 / 2
-
Miss. Valley Barge Line Co. v. Indian Towing Co., Inc., 232 F.2d 750 (5th Cir. 1956)…got in trouble. First, the salvor knew nothing of this and the likely peril is to be viewed through his eyes at the time he is determining whether to respond to the gallant call of the sea. Merritt & Chapman Derrick & Wrecking Co. v. United States, 274 U.S. 611, 47 S.Ct. 663, 71 L.Ed. 1232; The Cashemire, D.C.S.C., 38 F. 518; The Shreveport, D.C.S.D.S.C., 42 F. 2d 524, 1930 AMC 1310. Second, Senator Bailey, at best, would not have arrived at MV 603’s position until 9:00 p. m. The Master’s Testimony may wel…
-
Saint Paul Marine Transp. Corp. v. Cerro Sales Corp., 505 F.2d 1115 (9th Cir. 1974)…that had been exposed to risk of loss during the salvage operation. The $200,000 salvage award is approximately 11% of the value of appellant’s cargo that would have been lost but for the St. Paul and her crew. . Merrit & Chapman v. United States, 274 U.S. 611, 47 S.Ct. 663, 71 L.Ed. 1232 (1926), cited by defendant, does not support its position. In that case, a vessel, lying next to a blazing pier, was cooled by an overflow of water that had been directed at the pier fire. The Supreme Court refused to al…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Cornell Steamboat Co., 202 U.S. 184 (U.S. 1906)
- The "Sabine", 101 U.S. 384 (U.S. 1879)
- Fritch v. United States, 248 U.S. 458 (U.S. 1919)