Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/215/130/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 22:14:53+00:00

Document:
cause was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, the question of jurisdiction, if it is of such a character as to sustain the appeal, is sufficiently certified. United States v. Larkin, 208 U. S. 333.
Where the case is dismissed because the character of the action is one cognizable exclusively by a court of admiralty and the jurisdiction is challenged because the situation of the vessel and the character of the services rendered afforded no jurisdiction in admiralty, the jurisdiction of the court as a federal court is involved, and the case is one cognizable by this Court under § 5 of the act of 1891.
Salvage service, over which a court of admiralty has jurisdiction, may arise from all perils which may encompass a vessel when on waters within the admiralty jurisdiction of the United States, and this includes services rendered to a vessel undergoing repairs in dry dock and in danger of being destroyed by fire which originated on land.
A vessel used for navigation and commerce does not cease to be a subject of admiralty jurisdiction because temporarily in a dry dock without water actually flowing around her.
The facts, which involved the jurisdiction of the admiralty court of a case for salvage services rendered to a vessel in dry dock and in peril from a fire originating on land, are stated in the opinion.
the present direct appeal is prosecuted. Dismissal of the appeal is moved on the ground that the jurisdiction of the court below was not involved in the sense of the fifth section of the act of 1891, 26 Stat. 826, c. 517, and, in any event, because the question of jurisdiction was not certified as required by that act.
"1. That, in the afternoon of the twenty-fifth day of December, 1906, the tug Helen, whereof said E. W. Simmons was master and having a crew of six men besides said master, was, together with the tug Alice, towing a certain barge from Norfolk, in said district, to the piers of the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company at Newport News, in said district; that about four or four-thirty o'clock on said day, when said tugs had arrived almost at their destination at Newport News, it was discovered that a fire was raging in the shipyard of the Newport News Shipyard & Dry Dock Company, and there-upon the libellant, with the said tug Helen, docked his tow at one of the said piers of the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company and proceeded with all possible speed to the said fire."
in a dry dock, rendered the fire engines and fire department totally unable to render any assistance whatsoever, under which circumstances said steamer would have been completely destroyed but for the assistance rendered by libellant and other salvors hereinafter mentioned."
"3. That thereupon libellant, with his said tug Helen and crew, lay at a bulkhead of one of the piers, as close to the said dry dock as possible, and together with the tugs Alice and James Smith, Jr., played streams of water from their fire house upon said steamship Jefferson, and continued so to do until the fire was completely extinguished; that libellant and other salvors were thus engaged from about 4:30 o'clock in the afternoon of said day until about 8:30 o'clock at night, during all of which time libellant and said salvors rendered every possible assistance to said steamship, and during all of which time libellant and others entitled as salvors as aforesaid underwent great suffering from smoke, flame, and sparks, and endured great hardship from exposure to the wind and water in the bitter coldness of the weather, and libellant and other salvors incurred great danger from said smoke, flames, and sparks, and from electric wires, falling poles, adjacent burning buildings, etc."
"4. That the said steamship Jefferson is of great value; that the aforementioned efforts and services rendered by libellant and other salvors saved the said steamship from total and complete destruction; that libellant, by reason of the hardships necessarily incurred, and especially by reason of the nature and the great importance of the services rendered in saving said steamship, reasonably deserved to have and therefore claim a commensurate reward for salvage therefor."
"First. That the property proceeded against was not at sea or on the coast of the sea, or within public navigable waters, or on the shores thereof."
"Second. That the property proceeded against was not a vessel engaged in maritime commerce."
"Third. That the libellants did not render any service at sea or in saving property from any peril of the sea."
"Fourth. That there is not shown any sea peril or such peril as may be the basis of a claim for salvage."
"Fifth. That the Jefferson, while in a dry dock, from which all the water had been emptied, when threatened with fire from land, was not a subject of salvage services."
"Sixth. That there is not shown any admiralty or maritime lien upon the Jefferson in favor of the libellants for salvage."
"The court is of opinion, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed, on the fourteenth day of January, 1908, that it is without jurisdiction in the premises and that the exceptions should be sustained. . . ."
which was decided below was one of jurisdiction, and as the decree which was appealed from on its face shows that the cause was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, the question of jurisdiction, if it is of such a character as to sustain the appeal, was sufficiently certified. United States v. Larkin, 208 U. S. 333, 208 U. S. 338. We therefore put the contentions as to the absence of a certificate out of view.
"These, however, have relation to perils encountered and services rendered and performed to vessels actually engaged in commerce, either on the high seas or other public navigable water. . . . The Jefferson, at the time of the service sued for, was not a medium of commerce subject to dangers and hazards of the seas. She, on the contrary, was in an unseaworthy condition, undergoing repairs. She could not move of her own volition, nor could she be used at the time in furtherance of commerce. She was neither pursuing nor capable of engaging in her ordinary business of navigation of the seas."
"This language makes it clear that the peril in which the Jefferson was placed arose from a fire on the shore, and that there was no peril in connection with the sea or the navigation thereof."
"The mere fact that the property upon which the fire was extinguished was that of a vessel will not suffice. There must have been a sea peril from which it was rescued, and the vessel itself must have been at the time the subject of a sea peril, in order to support a maritime lien and afford jurisdiction in rem in the admiralty."
As the foregoing considerations demonstrate that the case was dismissed below because of the conclusion that there was no jurisdiction as a federal court over the subject matter of the controversy, it results that the motion to dismiss is without merit. Cope v. Vallette Dry Dock Co., 119 U. S. 625; The Resolute, 168 U. S. 437; Cleveland Terminal Valley R. Co. v. Cleveland Steamship Co., 208 U. S. 316; The Troy, 208 U. S. 321; Scully v. Bird, 209 U. S. 481; Globe Newspaper Co. v. Walker, 210 U. S. 356.
Passing to the merits, the question is this: did the facts set forth in the libel prima facie state a claim for salvage within the admiralty jurisdiction?
The contention on the part of the appellee that a negative answer should be given to this question is based upon the propositions which controlled the action of the court below. They are: a, that, at the time the services sued for were rendered, the Jefferson was in a dry dock undergoing repairs, was not on the sea, but was virtually on the shore, and was consequently at such time not an instrumentality of navigation, subject to the dangers and hazards of the sea; b, the services were not rendered in saving the Jefferson from a maritime peril, as the danger relied on arose outside of the admiralty jurisdiction, and not in connection with the sea or the navigation thereof. We shall consider the contentions together.
peril on the sea, or in recovering such property from actual loss, as in cases of shipwreck, derelict, or recapture."
"Service undoubtedly was performed by the members of the fire department, but it is a mistake to suppose that service was not also performed by the steam tug, as it is clear that, without the aid of the steam tug and the services of her master and crew, the members of the fire company would never have been able to reach the ship with their engines and necessary apparatus, or to have subdued the flames and extinguished the fire. Useful services of any kind rendered to a vessel or her cargo, exposed to any impending danger and imminent peril of loss or damage, may entitle those who render such services to salvage reward."
"Persons assisting to extinguish a fire on board a ship, or assisting to tow a ship from a dock where she is in imminent danger of catching fire, are as much entitled to salvage compensation as persons who render assistance to prevent a ship from being wrecked, or in securing a wreck or protecting the cargo of a stranded vessel. The Rosalie, 1 Spink 188; Eastern Monarch, Lush. 81; The Tees, Lush. 505; Williams & Bruce Adm. Pr. 92."
towing to a place of safety a vessel lying in a dock and in danger of catching fire from the surrounding warehouses which were in flames. To the English cases cited in the opinion in The Blackwall may be added that of The City of Newcastle, 7 Asp.Mar.Cas. (N.S.) 546. That case was heard before Justice Bruce, assisted by the Trinity Masters, and the facts in brief were as follows: a fire broke out on board a vessel which was lying alongside a jetty at the entrance to a dock. The vessel was under repairs, with no steam up, and had no one but the master and watchman on board. At the request of the master, a steamship, which had just arrived, hove alongside, and, getting her hose on board the burning vessel, extinguished the fire, which, if it had remained unchecked, would have caused a very serious damage. The services were such as might have been rendered by a fire engine on shore. The value of the salved vessel was £9,500. The defendants tendered £200. The court upheld the tender, being of opinion that the services were not of such character as to require that the award should be assessed upon the same liberal principles as obtained in the ordinary cases of sea salvage rendered by one ship to another.
"A ship or vessel used for navigation and commerce, though lying at a wharf and temporarily made fast thereto, as well as her furniture and cargo, are maritime subjects, and are capable of receiving salvage services."
In reason, we think it cannot be held that a ship or vessel employed in navigation and commerce is any the less a maritime subject within the admiralty jurisdiction when, for the purpose of making necessary repairs to fit her for continuance in navigation, she is placed in a dry dock and the water removed from about her, than would be such a vessel if fastened to a wharf in a dry harbor, where, by the natural recession of the water by the ebbing of the tide, she for a time might be upon dry land. Clearly, in the case last supposed, the vessel would not cease to be a subject within the admiralty jurisdiction merely because, for a short period, by the operation of nature's laws, water did not flow about her. Nor is there any difference in principle between a vessel floated into a wet dock, which is so extensively utilized in England for commercial purposes in the loading and unloading of vessels at abutting quays, and the dry dock into which a vessel must be floated for the purpose of being repaired, and from which, after being repaired, she is again floated into an adjacent stream. The status of a vessel is not altered merely because, in the one case, the water is confined within the dock by means of gates closed when the tide begins to ebb, while, in the other, the water is removed and the gates are closed to prevent the inflow of the water during the work of repair.
out of the water, was a maritime service. Peyroux v. Howard, 7 Pet. 324.
"A further suggestion, however, is made that the contract in this case was not only made on land, but was to be performed on land, and was in fact performed on land. This argument must necessarily rest upon the assumption that repairs put upon a vessel while in dry dock are made upon land. We are unwilling to admit this proposition. . . . A dry dock differs from an ordinary dock only in the fact that it is smaller, and provided with machinery for pumping out the water in order that the vessel may be repaired. All injuries suffered by the hulls of vessels below the water line, by collision or stranding, must necessarily be repaired in a dry dock, to prevent the inflow of water; but it has never been supposed, and it is believed the proposition is now for the first time made, that such repairs were made on land. . . . But, as all serious repairs upon the hulls of vessels are made in dry docks, the proposition that such repairs are made on land would practically deprive the admiralty courts of their largest and most important jurisdiction in connection with repairs. No authorities are cited to this proposition, and it is believed none such exist."
There is in reason no distinction between the continued control of admiralty over a vessel when she is in & dry dock for the purpose of being repaired and the subjection of the vessel when in a dry dock for repairs to the jurisdiction of a court of admiralty for the purpose of passing upon claims for salvage services, by which it is asserted the vessel, while in the dock, was saved from destruction.

References: v. 
 § 5
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.