The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 272: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States and the Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, June-August, 1921. Page: 348
This legislative document is part of the collection entitled: The Federal Reporter and was provided to UNT Digital Library by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
348 272 FEDERAL REPORTER
[1, 2] The most serious question presented by the case arises from
the contention of the claimant that inasmuch as she, under the guise of
the Waller Lighterage Company, expended $1,690 in raising her own
boat, and as it appears that the boat, after raising, was worth but $1,-
800, the value of the salved vessel is but $110. Against this amount
the claimant contends that the services of the three tugs, who have
been settled with, as well as the Tice and the Rugge, must be set off,
and that the share of the services rendered by the fire department must
also be taken into account. If process had been served upon the cargo,
or any funds representing that portion of the cargo which was saved.
this would have some bearing in fixing the salvage award, and must
in any event be taken into account in determining what award should
be made to the Tice and the Rugge.
The contention of the claimant is plausible upon its face; but upon
careful analysis it appears that the result reached by the claimant is
incorrect. If the Waller Lighterage Company had lived up to the al-
leged agreement with the Barrett Manufacturing Company, the Brown
would have been insured. The insurance company then would have
been interested in raising the boat, in order to reduce their loss, and
whatever expense there was connected with raising the boat would have
been repaid by the insurance company to the Barrett Manufacturing
Company, who, in turn, would have turned the boat back in proper
condition to the Waller Lighterage Company and paid charter hire.
The Barrett Mlnufacturing Company would then not have denied re-
sponsibility for the boat because of the alleged breach of contract by
the Waller Lighterage Company. Damages suffered by this breach of
contract are not chargeable against the value of the boat. As salved,
the boat represents a value of $1,800, in addition to the value of the
cargo which was saved, but which has not been brought into the
present action.
[3] Taking into account the services of the fire department and of
the other tugs, it would seem that an award of $250 for the Tice and
the Rugge would represent the services which they rendered, and which
are properly chargeable against the boat. Of this the Tice should
have $175 and the Rugge $75, and the award should be divided in the
proportion of two-thirds to the owner and one-third to the crew of
each boat.
In re DAUTZ.
(District Court, D. Indiana. May 7, 1921.)
No. (86.
1. Bankruptcy e==178(3)-Immaterial whether voluntary assignment is com-
mon-law or statutory.
In bankruptcy proceedings, it is unnecessary to determine whether an
agreement executed by the bankrupt, which amounts to a voluntary as-
signment for the benefit of his creditors, is a common-law or statutory
assignment, since the Bankruptcy Act (Comp. St. 1 9585 et seq.) compre-
hends any arrangement which is in truth a voluntary transfer for the
benefit of creditors
4For other case see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This document can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Legislative Document.
The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 272: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States and the Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, June-August, 1921., legislative document, 1921; Saint Paul, Minnesota. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc38843/m1/370/: accessed April 25, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.