Court Opinion

ID: 8631830
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 19:38:53.989298+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:47.631006
License: Public Domain

BENEDICT, District Judge.
Inasmuch as it appears that the fund in court is insufficient to discharge the amount claimed by the libellant Eggers, it is manifest that he should not be put to the expense of interposing a defence to the petition of O’Brien, unless the claim is one which, if substantiated, would be entitled to a priority over the claim of Eggers in the distribution of the fund in court Upon this question I entertain no doubt The claim of the petitioner arises out of supplies furnished the vessel in New Orleans. The claim of Eggers arises out of a cargo afterward sold by the master in good faith, in a port of distress, when it was impossible otherwise to raise money to pay for supplies furnished to the vessel. The money thus raised from the sale of the cargo was in good faith applied by the master to prevent a condemnation and sale of the vessel in Turk’s Island, and to enable her to reach New York. This was a proceeding for the benefit of the petitioner, as thereby the vessel, upon which he claims to have had a lien, was saved from condemnation, and enabled to reach her home, where it might be that her owners could discharge the debts, or if not, where the vessel could be sold to better advantage than by condemnation in Turk’s Island. They cannot, therefore, in equity, ask to be paid in preference to the owners of the cargo so sold. The present motion, therefore, which, under ordinary circumstances, would be granted as of course, made as it is for the purpose of saving expense by an early decision of the question of priority raised and involving in its decision no interests other than of the petitioner and the libellant, who has appeared to oppose it, is denied.