THE J. S. WARDEN. THE ORIENT. THE MT. DESERT

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York1910-01-29

175 F. 314

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court held that a maritime lien for wages extends to all crew members whose services further the purposes of the voyage, not merely those engaged in navigation or ship preservation. The case was remanded to the master to compute damages in accordance with this standard and to determine the character and duration of services aboard each vessel.

A bartender sought a maritime lien for wages owed for services rendered aboard three vessels. The court held that maritime liens are not confined solely to workers directly involved in ship navigation or preservation, but extend to all crew members whose services advance the voyage's objectives. The court rejected the older restrictive interpretation as a historical artifact of jurisdictional conflicts between common law and admiralty courts that no longer apply. The bartender's employment aboard the vessels satisfied this broader standard, entitling him to recover wages.

The court directed the master to conduct further proceedings to determine the precise amounts owed. For The J. S. Warden, no compensation was allowed for pre-commission work unless the master found the services were maritime in character, and the court resolved that wages continued even while the vessel was in marshal's custody. For The Mt. Desert and The Orient, the master was instructed to evaluate whether services rendered on non-excursion days were maritime in nature, while presuming the claimant was legitimately employed based on the ship's records.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Scope of maritime lien—whether limited to navigation and preservation services or extended to all services furthering voyage purposes
Eligibility of bartender services for maritime lien protection
Whether wages accrue when a vessel is in custodial care of court officers
Proper characterization of employment aboard the three named vessels

Procedural posture

The libelant brought claims for unpaid wages as a bartender aboard three vessels, and the district court determined the merits of the lien claims and directed reference to the master for computation of damages.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

HAND, District Judge.

I think the libelant is entitled to a maritime lien for his services as bartender. There could, of course, have been no doubt under the early decisions that admiralty would not have taken jurisdiction over such a claim, for by a great number of authorities the lien was limited to services which were in aid of the navigation of the ship or the preservation of the-ship. In 1815 Lord Stbwell refused to allow the lien even of á surgeon. The Lord Hobart, 2 Dodson, 100. Judge Peters in The New Jersey, Fed. Cas. No. 5,233, made the same ruling- in Í806; and more recent cases are not infrequent to the effect that the lien is limited to services in aid of the navigation of the ship. Trainor v. Boat Superior, Gilp. 514, Fed. Cas. No. 14,136; Gurney v. Crockett, Fed. Cas. No. 5,874; The W. F. Brown (D. C.) 46 Fed. 290.

0While the cases to the contrary are few in number, there is some unquestioned authority for the proposition that, v/herever the services are in aid of the purposes of the voyage, a lien arises, even though they are for the navigation of the ship or its preservation. The Ocean-Spray, 4 Sawy. 105, Fed. Cas. No. 10,412; The Minna (D. C.) 11 Fed. 759. In the last, case Mr. Justice Brown, then District Judge, said:

“AHhands employed upon the vessel, except the master, are entitled to a lien ii their services are in furtherance of the main objects of the enterprise in which she is engaged-.”

No doubt the learned justice would have modified this by the assumption that the services were rendered upon the ship. See, also, The Sultana, 1 Brown’s Adm. 13, Fed. Cas. No. 13,602, which seems, however, to disagree with The Emma, Fed. Cas. No. 18,218. There is a dictum of the .Circuit Court of Appeals, likewise, in Saylor v. Taylor, 77 Fed. 476, 23 C. C. A. 343, to the same effect. The earlier restriction of the rule reflects the contemporaneous conflict of jurisdiction between the courts of common law and the courts of admiralty, a-conflict the significance of which has long since disappeared.

Section 4612 of the Revised Statutes (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3120), while not. controlling, is an indication of the breadth of meaning which Congress, at least, means to put upon the word-“seamen,” and if the statute did in terms apply, there could be no question of its including the services of the libelant in this case.

As I can see in principle no reason why there should be an artificial limitation of rights to those engaged in the navigation of the ship, to. the exclusion of others who equally further the purposes of her voyage, and as there is.at least some competent authority for the broader construction of the rule, I shall decide that the libelant has a lien for his wages as bartender, and direct a reference to compute the damages.

In the case of The j. S. Warden, for the year 1908, I cannot allow the libelant anything for the period before the ship went into commission, which was on July 4th, unless the master says that his services were of a maritime character. The Hattie Thomas (D. C.) 59 Fed. 297. The master will also decide whether between September 1 and 25, 1909, the libelant was in fact the ship’s master, though he went’ by the name of purser. It is not a defense that between the 12th and the 24th of September the ship was in the custody of the marshal. The Alanson Sumner. (D. C.) 28 Fed. 670. In the case cited Judge Coxe ruled that when a ship was in the sheriff’s cuslody wages continued, if the seamen remained ready and willing. I can see no distinction because here the ship was in the marshal’s custody.

In regard to The Mt. Desert I decide that the libelant was not kept there out of charity. Wily he should have been employed is not clear, but the ship’s time-book satisfies me that he was in fact regarded as employed. The master will compute the time and rate in accordance with the showing of the book. The master will also determine the character of the services during the days when the ship did not make excursions. While it may, perhaps, be unlikely that the libelant’s services were not in furtherance of the purposes of the ship, it is possible that they were of a purely nonmaritime character; at least, the claimant should be allowed to go into that issue.

In regard to The Orient, between May 27th and June 26th, the master will also determine the character of the services during the days when the ship was not on excursions, as in the case of The Mt. Desert/

Prepare a decree to compute damages.