WOODWORTH
v.
INSURANCE COMPANY
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.
A mortgagee who allowed his claim against a vessel to remain dormant while another party, the Corn Exchange Company, undertook costly litigation to establish the vessel owner's liability could not revive his claim and share in the proceeds of that successful litigation without first satisfying the Company's unpaid judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed that the mortgagee was barred from pursuing his later-filed libels where he had contributed nothing to the established liability and his interests had been adverse to the Company's legal efforts.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice MILLEB,
delivered the opinion of the' court.
The litigation to • establish the liability of the Boss was troublesome and expensive to the Corn Exchange Company. Mr. Woodworth did not, in any manner, aid, or offer to aid in it. His interest was against the liability which the company sought to establish; for, if the Boss was declared pot liable, he received these proceeds .and remnants as mortgagee of that vessel. But, after permitting his own libel to sleep during this struggle, he attempts, When it is over, to revive that libel, and claims to share in the fruits of a victory won without his aid, and against his wishes. The District and Circuit Courts both thought he was not entitled to do this, so long as the Corn Exchange Company remained unpaid. In this view' we concur.‡
Our remarks are meant to apply to the libel filed April 1, 1863. But all that "we have said in reference to that libel applies with additional force to the one filed 14th April, 1864, arising from the longer delay in asserting the claim.
Decrees aeeirmed with costs.
‡
See The Saracen, 6 Mooré P. C. 56; The Clara, 1 Swabey, 1.