Case Name: THE WEST HARTLAND
Court: United States District Court for the Western District of Washington
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1924-02-08
Citations: 297 F. 330
Docket Number: No. 6426
Parties: THE WEST HARTLAND.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 297
Pages: 330–333

Head Matter:
THE WEST HARTLAND.
(District Court, W. D. Washington, N. D.
February 8, 1924.
On Rehearing of Petition as to Repairs, March 10, 1924.)
No. 6426.
1. Collision <©==>140— In limitation proceedings against collision damages, owner’s liability is measured by value of ship immediately after collision.
In proceedings for limitation of liability for collision damages, the measure of the owner’s liability is the value of the vessel immediately after the collision from which he may claim only for money necessarily expended to preserve her from loss or destruction.
2. Collision <®=»I40— In limitation proceedings owner cannot claim for subsequent repairs to vessel.
In proceedings for limitation of liability for collision damages, where the owner has made extensive repairs since the collision, he may obtain the benefit of such expenditure by surrendering the ship’s appraised value immediately after the collision; but, if he elects to surrender 'the ship, he cannot assert a prior lien on the proceeds for the cost of such repairs. v
In Admiralty. Petition by the United States, acting through the United States Shipping Board, represented by the United States Ship ping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation, for limitation of liability as owner of the steamship West Hartland. On claim of petitioner for cost of repairs.
<§z^?For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
Denied.
By decision filed September 21, 192S (295 Fed. 517), on petition and over objection of claimants, limitation of liability was granted. In tbe petition for limitation it is said that as a result of the collision the stem and bow of the ship were split, torn, crushed, and destroyed as far as the fore peak or collision bulkhead, and that the vessel was compelled to return to the Fort of Seattle, where she was drydocked and repaired at large expense, and that she was made seaworthy and of much greater value than immediately after the collision. The petitioner now seeks to have repaid to it the' sum of ii>63,250, the amount necessarily expended in repairing the vessel and placing her in a seaworthy condition; after being repaired, the vessel was kept in a safe berth until surrendered. It is not denied that the repairs of the vessel were not worth the sum expended, but it is said that the vessel should have been surrendered immediately following the collision or appraisement obtained pursuant to statute and stipulation filed for its then value, and that the petitioner may not now recover what was voluntarily paid in its repair.
Bronson, Robinson & Jones, of Seattle, Wash., for petitioner.
Grosscup & Morrow, Bogle, Merritt & Bogle, and Huffer, Hayden & Bucey, all of Seattle, Wash., for claimants.

Opinion:
NETERER, District Judge.
"It is well settled that the value, which is the measure of the owners' liability, is the value of the vessel immediately after the collision." Norwich Co. v. Wright, 13 Wall. 104, 20 L. Ed. 585; In re Wright et al., Fed. Cas. No. 18,066, 30 Fed. Cas. 659; Boston Marine Ins. Co. v. Metropolitan Redwood Lbr. Co., 197 Fed. 703, 117 C. C. A. 97; Pac. Coast Co. v. Reynolds, 114 Fed. 877, 52 C. C. A. 497.
The value of the vessel immediately after the collision obviously was its value in a seaworthy condition, less the cost of repairs. Judge Choate, in Re Wright et al, supra, at page 660, said:
"The additional value, which the owners have put upon the vessel by repairing her, constituted no part of her at the time the damage was sustained."
Judge Ross for the Circuit Court in Pacific Coast Co. v. Reynolds, supra, held that the expense of the owner in releasing a vessel from the rocks and having her towed to port must be deducted from the value of the vessel as she was lying, stranded on the reef — not only the expense incurred, but also an allowance on account of the risk and hazard, and this was affirmed in Boston Marine Ins. Co. v. Met. Redwood Dumber Co., supra; in this case Judge Gilbert said that the value of the ship on limitation of liability is her value immediately after the collision, less the expense of her salvage and an allowance for the risk and hazard affecting the rescue. To the same effect is The Abbie C. Stubbs (D. C.) 28 Fed. 719.
There being no contention as to the value' of the repairs, it would seem that equity would not he much concerned with the fact that the vessel was not appraised and released on stipulation prior to sale. I think this is sustained by The Captain Jack (D. C.) 162 Fed. 808, as well as on principle. Equity is remedial justice and is concerned with the rights of the parties. "Equity delights in justice."
In the absence of anything to the contrary, the sale is conclusive in establishing the value of the vessel; it not being denied that the repairs made were not reasonably worth the sum expended, and the court having heretofore found by decision of September 21, 1923, that the value of the vessel immediately following the collision was the same as at the time of surrender, plus the repairs. Upon the record and as presently advised, I think the claim should be allowed.