Case Name: THE RICHLAND QUEEN. RICHLAND S. S. CO. v. BUFFALO DRY DOCK CO.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1918-11-13
Citations: 254 F. 668
Docket Number: No. 31
Parties: THE RICHLAND QUEEN. RICHLAND S. S. CO. v. BUFFALO DRY DOCK CO.
Judges: Before WARD, ROGERS, and MANTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 254
Pages: 668–673

Head Matter:
THE RICHLAND QUEEN. RICHLAND S. S. CO. v. BUFFALO DRY DOCK CO.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
November 13, 1918.)
No. 31.
1. Contracts &wkey;>212(2) — Repairs—Time.
, Under dry dock company’s! contract to repair a vessel, where no time was specified, the repairs are to be made within a reasonable time; and where a strike occurred among the operatives of the dock company, which delayed the work, the question is whether the delay was reasonable or not, in view of the circumstances at the time the contract was being performed.
2. Contracts <&wkey;300(5) — Performance—Excuse—Strikes.
Where, after a dry dock company had contracted to repair a vessel, its . employes demanded shorter working hours, and struck because their demand was refused, held that, though the strike was not accompanied by violence, it was an excuse for delay in completing the repairs; the delay • being reasonable in view of the strike, and there being no difference in principle between peaceable and violent strikes.
Mantón, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
Appeals from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of New York.
Libel by the Buffalo Dry Dock Company against the steamship Rich-land Queen, her engines, etc., claimed by the Richland Steamship Company, together with a libel by the RichlanduSteamship Company against the Buffalo Dry Dock Company. From decrees for the Dry Dock Company,- the Steamship Company appeals.
Affirmed.
Thomas C. Burke, of Buffalo, N. Y., and Hoyt, Dustin, Kelley, Mc-Keehan & Andrews, of Cleveland, Ohio, for Buffalo 'Dry Dock Co.
Harvey D. Goulder and Goulder, White & Garry, all of Cleveland, Ohio, and Botsford, Lytle, Mitchell & Alffro, of Buffalo, N. Y. (Thomas II. Garry, of Cleveland, Ohio, and Alrnon W. Jytle, of Buffalo, N. Y., of counsel), for Richland S. S. Co.
Before WARD, ROGERS, and MANTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
WARD, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from a decree of Judge Hazel in favor of the Buffalo Dry Dock Company for the reasonable cost of repairs to the steamer Richland Queen, and dismissing the cross-libel of the Richland Steamship Company for, damages for loss of the use of the vessel due to unreasonable delay in making the repairs.
September 5, 1916, the steamer was sent to the Dry Dock Company's yard, and remained there until December 5th. No express contract for the repairs was made, but the reasonable value of the use of the dry dock and of the repairs is admitted to have been $39,984.08. The Steamship Company, in order to get possession of its vessel, paid $30,000 to the Dry Dock Company without prejudice, and gave a stipulation for the balance, and in its cross-libel alleged that the repairs should have been completed by October 9, 1916, and that it was deprived of the use of its steamer during the remainder of the season to November 13th, or 37 days, at the reasonable rate of $500 a day, aggregating $18,500.
The Dry Dock Company kept an open shop, and justified the delay by the fact that a strike of its workmen began October 14, 1916, without grievance or warning, which prevented by intimidation and violence old hands and new hands from working.
At the trial the only contention was as to the damages for delay, viz. whether the Steamship Company was entitled to a decree for $18,-500, less the unpaid balance of the Dry Dock Company's bill of $9,-984.08.
The working day in the Buffalo shipyards at the time in question was nine hours, with a half holiday on Saturday during the summer months, while some competing yards on the Rakes required a nine-hour, and some a ten-hour, day.
October 14, 1916, a committee of workmen demanded of the Dry Dock Company ail eight-hour day without reduction of pay, which the company refused, and notified the men that thereafter they must-work a straight nine-hour day for six days in the week. As a consequence 80 to 90 per cent, of the men left the yard, and although the company did its best to secure an adequate force of workmen, it was not able to do so. The strike involved no violence, although picketing was kept up in the neighborhood of the yard, and there was much persuasion of both old and new hands. The men gradually came back between November 15th and December 2d, without any change in the hours of labor, and there has been no labor trouble since that time.
Judge Hazel was of opinion that the Dry Dock Company, in view of all the circumstances, made the repairs to the steamer in a reasonable time, and was not liable under the decision of the Court of Appeals of the state of New York in D., L. & W. R. R. Co. v. Bowns, 58 N. Y. 573. In that case, however, there was an agreement to deliver coal within a fixed time, with an express exception of interference by strikes. No time was fixed in the case under consideration for making the repairs, so that-the obligation of the Dry Dock Company was to make them within a reasonable time, and there was no exception of strikes. The question, therefore, is simply whether the delay complained of was reasonable or unreasonable, not in view of the circumstances existing at the time the contract was made, but in view of the circumstances existing when the contract was being performed. Empire Transportation Co. v. P. & R. R. R. Co., 77 Fed. 919, 23 C. C. A. 564, 35 L. R. A. 623; Hick v. Rodoconachi, 2 Q. B. D. 626.
The Court of Appeals of the state of New York has held that a peaceable strike of the employer's servants is no defense to a claim for delay (Blackstock v. New York & Erie R. R. Co., 20 N. Y. 48, 75 Am. Dec. 372), while a strike with violence is a defense (Geismer v. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co., 102 N. Y. 563, 7 N. E. 828, 55 Am. Rep. 837). The employer in each of these cases was a common carrier, but, as the recovery sought was for damages caused by delay in delivery, the decisions are applicable to the situation under consideration, because common carriers are not insurers of prompt delivery, but only liable for ordinary care and diligence. The duty is the same as in the present case, viz. the performance in a reasonable time in view of all the circumstances.
We do not appreciate the distinction made in these cases, thinking that the difference between a peaceable and a violent strike as a defense is one of degree only, a strike with violence being more likely to be a good defense than a peaceable strike. The question, however, in, each case is the same, whether the conduct of the employer was reasonable. A peaceable strike upon frivolous grounds, which the employer did all he could to prevent, should be a defense against a claim, for delay. On the other hand, a violent strike on justifiable grounds, which the employer either fomented or unreasonably resisted, ought to be no defense. Of course, the employer in either case could end the strike, by surrendering. We are not disposed to differ with Judge Plazel's finding that the Dry Dock Company's performance was reasonable in view of the strike.
Decree affirmed.