Case Name: TENNESSEE VALLEY SAND & GRAVEL CO., Plaintiff-Appellant Cross-Appellee, v. M/V DELTA, her engines, tackle, apparel, etc., in rem and Hobart-Worley Towing Company, Inc., in personam, Defendants-Appellees Cross-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1979-10-05
Citations: 604 F.2d 13
Docket Number: No. 77-2202
Parties: TENNESSEE VALLEY SAND & GRAVEL CO., Plaintiff-Appellant Cross-Appellee, v. M/V DELTA, her engines, tackle, apparel, etc., in rem and Hobart-Worley Towing Company, Inc., in personam, Defendants-Appellees Cross-Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 604
Pages: 13–14

Head Matter:
TENNESSEE VALLEY SAND & GRAVEL CO., Plaintiff-Appellant Cross-Appellee, v. M/V DELTA, her engines, tackle, apparel, etc., in rem and Hobart-Worley Towing Company, Inc., in personam, Defendants-Appellees Cross-Appellants.
No. 77-2202.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 5, 1979.
E. Spivey Gault, Frank S. Thackston, Jr., Greenville, Miss., for plaintiff-appellant cross-appellee.
Joel J. Henderson, Greenville, Miss., for defendants-appellees cross-appellants.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
(Opinion (5 Cir., 1979), 598 F.2d 930)
Before TUTTLE, GODBOLD and RUBIN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
IT IS ORDERED that the petition for rehearing filed in the above entitled and numbered cause be and the same is hereby denied insofar as it seeks reconsideration of the result reached.
However, in reversing the trial court's denial of damages for the expenses incurred in salvaging the barge, it was not the intention of the majority to allow the recovery of the gross amount of expenses; credit should be given for the net proceeds received from sale of the salvaged barge. In order to avoid any misapprehension, the last sentence of the opinion is revised to read as follows:
The trial court's denial of damages for the expenses incurred in salvaging the barge is reversed. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. In computing the amount of damages due the appellant, the sum received for sale of the barge is to be deducted and the appellant is to be awarded only the net costs incurred.
While Judge Godbold is of the opinion that this clarification is proper, he adheres to his original dissenting opinion, and continues to hold the view that the district court should be affirmed.