Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
United States v. Norwegian Barque Thekla
266 U.S. 328
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1924-12-08
- Topic
- general
How later courts describe this case
- finding that, by joining in the suit, the United States accepted whatever liability the courts may decide to be reasonably incident to the accident in controversy
- “A collision involves two vessels.”
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Norwegian Barque Thekla. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 145 opinions
UNITED STATESv. THE THEKLA,266 U.S. 328(1924)
45 S.Ct. 112
UNITED STATESv. NORWEGIAN BARQUE "THEKLA," HER TACKLE, ETC.
CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT.
No. 258.
Argued November 20, 1924.
Decided December 1, 1924.
QUESTIONS certified by the Circuit Court of Appeals on an
appeal from a decree of the District Court against the United
States, as claimant, and the Fleet Corporation, as stipulator,
for damages resulting from a collision, with interest and costs.
The questions propounded were: (1) Was the District Court
empowered by law to render the decree entered? and, if that were
answered in the negative, (2) Must the Fleet Corporation, as
stipulator, respond for the damages proven? The certificate is
reported in full in 295 F. 1020.
The rule is now definitely established that the liability or nonliability of the Government does not depend upon procedural considerations but wholly upon the underlying principle that no obligation or liability can be imputed to it except of its creation.The Western Maid,257 U.S. 419,432,433.Page 330
The questions now submitted, after careful analysis, do not present new problems. The ruling inThe Western Maidis controlling. The subject matter of the cross libel (in rem) is an assumed lien liability of an Army cargo transport for resulting collision losses. The status of theLuckenbachat the time of the collision was identical with the status of theCarolinianinThe Western Maid Case, in which this Court has determined that Army transports are not subject to the incurment of lien liability for collision losses. No proceedingsin remcan be successfully maintained against Army transports for collision losses, because noin remliability exists. In the absence of anin remliability cross libelsin remcan not be prosecuted. The District Court was without jurisdiction over the subject matter of the cross libel.
The owners of theTheklacould not have successfully maintained an original libelin remagainst theLuckenbach. They could not have maintained an action against the United States for this collision in any court, as the United States has not consented to be sued upon tort claims. The owners of theThekladid not file a cross libel against the Luckenbach Steamship Company and could not successfully have done so, because the ownership of theLuckenbachhad passed to the United Statespro hac vice, and no liability rested upon the steamship company. Since the owners of theTheklacould not maintain an original action against theLuckenbach, or against her owners, or against the United States as ownerpro hac vice, they can not create jurisdiction over the subject matter in any court to hear their claim merely by turning to the cross libel.
Whatever jurisdiction may be acquired by authority of Admiralty Rule 53, as the cross libel proceedsin remagainst the vessel, the proofs must establish anin remliability of the vessel, otherwise the cross libel must be dismissed.Page 331
By the rules recently promulgated by this Court (254 U.S. 679,702,) Admiralty Rule 53, with some slight modification, is now Rule 50. The substantial purpose of this rule is that both the original and cross libelants should be similarly protected by adequate security.Vianellov.The Credit Lyonnais, 15 F. 637;Empresa Maritima a Vaporv.North South American SteamNav. Co., 16 F. 502. It did not intend that the courts should assume jurisdiction over substantive rights or matters which otherwise were not within the admiralty jurisdiction. Only such claims as are enforceable by original proceedings can be made enforceable by cross libel.The Electron, 48 F. 689.
The uniform decisions of our courts in admiralty matters, as well as in actions at law or in equity, have been to deny in cross actions affirmative relief against the Government (government property) in the absence of legislative consent to suit.Illinois Cent. R.R. Co. v.State Public Util. Comm.,245 U.S. 493;Roumaniav.Guaranty Trust Co., 250 F. 341.
The accepted practice under Admiralty Rule 53 has been to deny that cross libels can be maintained against the Government or its property for the collision torts of its public vessels.Barendrecht S.S. Co. v.United States, 286 F. 390;Boukerv.United States, 105 F. 398; s.c.186 U.S. 135.
The same ruling has been announced in proceedings at law,United Statesv.Nippissing Mines Co., 206 F. 431;DeGrootv.United States, 5 Wall 419;United Statesv.Eckford, 6 Wall. 484;Reesidev.Walker, 11 How. 272; and in equity cases,Illinois Central R.R. Co. v.State PublicUtilities Comm.,245 U.S. 493;French Republicv.Inland Nav.Co., 263 F. 410.
Unless expressly permitted by act of Congress, no injunction can be granted against the United States.CasePage 332v.Terrell, 11 Wall. 199;Hillv.United States, 9 How. 386;Belknapv.Schild,161 U.S. 16.
This Court inEx parte State of New York,256 U.S. 490, denied that "the uniform operation and effect of the characteristic principles and rules of the maritime law as a body" can impose itself upon and overrule the privileges and prerogatives which belong to the sovereign.
The Government's claim is one for damages. The Government has not brought theresinto court, and asked that an adjudication in prize or forfeiture be had. Neither has it asked for the determination of rights to specificresnor for the distribution of a specific fund. The rules announced in prize and such other cases are not related to nor controlling in the present case.
The Fleet Corporation by its undertaking has assumed the payment of the lien liability of theLuckenbach. There is no lien liability.Query:Is the decree properly enforceable against the Fleet Corporation? If our reasoning is sound, it cannot be enforced.
We assume the second question also asks for instructions on the question whether or no the decree as entered properly includes an allowance of interest and costs. The stipulator only becomes responsible for the payment of such money as may properly be decreed.
The cross-libel proceedings can not be converted into a proceeding against the Fleet Corporation. It continues as a proceedingin remagainst the Army transportLuckenbach.
In the absence of statutory authority, interest does not run against the Government. This general rule controls here. Even under private act cases in collision matters, where the act provides for the determination of liability upon the same principles as between private parties, in the absence of terms expressly allowing interest, interest is denied.Pennellv.United States, 162 F. 72, 78;Wattsv.United States, 129 F. 222, 226;The Mayflower,Page 3331924, A.M.C. 586;United Statesv.Barker, 2 Wheat. 395;Angaricav.Bayard,127 U.S. 251.
We do not regard the rule announced in prize causes, land condemnation, and just compensation cases as applicable here. The claim, if it can be said to be a claim, is merely a demand for money owing, of the same character as a suit upon contract.
Costs are not recoverable in the absence of statutory authority.
The opinion inWashington-Southern Nav. Co. v.BaltimorePhiladelphia Steamboat Co.,263 U.S. 629, fully reviews the history and application of old Admiralty Rule 53 and new Rule 50.
This Court inWardv.Chamberlain, 21 How. 572, declared that on a cross libelin remprocess must be taken out and served in the usual way.The Bristol, 4 Ben. 55. InCrowellv.The Theresa Wolf, 4 F. 152, andSouthwestern Transp. Co. v.Pittsburg Coal Co., 42 F. 920, the stay was denied because the counterclaim was not a proper subject for a cross libel.
The libel and cross libel are separate proceedings.TheDove,91 U.S. 381,383,384;The Keystone State, 185 F. 781.
The consolidation of separate and distinct causes and of original actions and cross actions, in federal courts, is authorized by § 921, Rev. Stats.The North Star,106 U.S. 17;Adlerv.Seaman, 266 F. 828.
The libel and cross libel arise out of the same collision but present separate and distinct causes of action.
Since theWestern Maiddecision, the English courts have sustained the ruling that public vessels do not incur lien responsibilities for collision losses.The Tervaete[1922] P. 259;The Sylvan Arrow[1923] P. 220.
The reasoning of the District Court is in conflict with the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit inRoumaniav.Guaranty Trust Co., 250 F. 341,Page 334343. See alsoIn re Patterson-MacDonald ShipbuildingCo., 293 F. 192.
The cases upon which the District Court based its conclusions are prize and forfeiture cases. In such cases the United States has resorted to the aid of the court to procure the condemnation of vessels and has thus placed either the vessel or its proceeds in the court for judicial administration. Claims against the vessel or the funds thus have been satisfied.Carrv.UnitedStates,98 U.S. 433.
In the Porto Rico cases cited, title to real property was involved, and the court adjudicated the interest of Porto Rico in and to such property.
"The objection to a suit against the United States is fundamental, whether it be in the form of an original action or a set-off or a counterclaim. Jurisdiction in either case does not exist unless there is specific congressional authority for it."Nassau Smelting Worksv.United States, ante, 101, 106.Mr. Charles S. Haight, with whomMr. John W. GriffinandMr. Wharton Poorwere on the brief, for the "Thekla."
The United States has submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the court.
The right, if any, to recover the damages sustained by theLuckenbach, and the liability, if any, for the damages sustained by theThekla, were throughout the right and the liability of the United States; the Luckenbach Steamship Company, originally made a formal libelant apparently for some supposed tactical advantage, was subsequently dropped out of the case; the United States has, from the beginning, been the only real party in interest, as it is now the only party before the Court on theLuckenbach'sside. The Government's brief clearly recognizes the fact that both the libel and the answer filedPage 335by the Luckenbach Steamship Company were filed on the Government's behalf.
The United States deliberately invoked the judgment of the court below. Claiming that theTheklawas at fault for the collision, it actively and affirmatively sought the judgment of the court, asked to be made a formal party-libelant with full knowledge that a cross libel was pending, filed its claim, took up the defense of the cross libel and gave security for the recovery claimed therein. It accepted the condition originally imposed by the District Court while the Luckenbach Steamship Company was the only party named as libelant, namely, that security must be given for the cross libel before the original libel could be prosecuted.
The position of theTheklais (1) that, where the Government is the actor and asks the judgment of the Court with respect to a certain subject matter, it submits itself,quoadthat subject matter, to the jurisdiction of the court; (2) that, in such a case, the Government's affirmative liability, if any, may be determined; (3) that these principles are especially applicable to cross suits in admiralty for collision, which formonesubject matter;(4) that the Government, having accepted the court's condition and having appeared and given security, cannot, after having lost its case, reverse that action; (5) that a decree may be entered, liquidating and adjudicating the Government's liability; (6) and that, where a private corporation, the Emergency Fleet Corporation, which is admittedly suable, is before the court as a stipulator, a decree may, in any case, be rendered against it.
The cases ofThe Siren, 7 Wall. 152,The Davis, 10 Wall. 15, andThe Western Maid,257 U.S. 419, while they employ varying terminology, all recognize that collision and salvage, even where government vessels or other property are involved, give rise to claims of some sort, whether described as "inchoate," or "legal but unenforcible,"Page 336or "ethical only," and when the Government comes into court as actor in a case involving such a claim, it opens the way for an adjudication by the court — though not, of course, for enforcement by execution against government property.
The rule, then, being, as stated inThe Western Maid, that, when the United States comes into court to enforce a claim, it will be "assumed to submit to just claims of third persons in respect of the same subject matter," the only question before the court in this case is whether the claim of the owners of theTheklais a "just claim" "in respect of the same subject matter."
In determining what is and what is not a "just claim," the court would ordinarily look for guidance to the general rules promulgated by the sovereign for its subjects; the sovereign, who has formulated these rules, may not assert that they are less than just. But in fact, the United States has expressly declared by statute that the collision rules shall be binding upon its public vessels — not only upon its subjects, but upon itself. It has, therefore, in the most solemn manner, recognized the justice of the rules in question and has definitely expressed its intention that its vessels shall obey them. Act of August 19, 1890, c. 802, § 1, Art. 13,26 Stat. 320, 325.
The Government insists that the subject matter of the cross libel is the lien liability of theLuckenbach. This is, however, an obvious error. The subject matter of a case is quite independent of the question whether the libelant does or does not have a lien to secure his claim. Thus a libel for collision may be filedin personamas well asin rem;also, the libel may bein remand the cross libelin personam, and still the libel and cross libel constitute one suit and the single question before the court is, "Where does the responsibility for the collision rest?"
The subject matter of a collision case is the collision, and in every such case the subject matter of the libelPage 337and the cross libel must be the same.Bowkerv.UnitedStates,186 U.S. 135.
Cross suits for collision are one litigation and give rise to only one liability.Bowkerv.United States, supra; The NorthStar,106 U.S. 17;The Manitoba,122 U.S. 97;The Dove,91 U.S. 381;Stoomvaart Mattschappy Nederlandv.PeninsularOriental Steam Nav. Co., L.R. 7 A.C. 795.
Therefore, in determining whether this is a "just claim," to the adjudication of which the sovereign submitted by bringing suit, it is to be remembered (1) that the suit which the sovereign brought necessarily involved deciding as to the fault of both vessels; (2) that the questions as to the fault of both vessels, with the resulting legal consequences, were the very subject matter on which the Government asked the court's decision; (3) that the cross suit is one litigation with the original suit and is "incidental to and dependent upon the original suit"; (4) that the suits had been consolidated before the Government asked to be made a formal party; (5) that, under settled principles, only one liability arose from the collision; and (6) that the sovereign has expressly subjected its public vessels to the collision rules.The Nuestra Senora de Regla,108 U.S. 92;The Paquete Habana,175 U.S. 677.
A sovereign who intervenes in a suit may become subject to the entry of a money judgment against him, although the court has no express statutory authority to enter such a judgment.PortoRicov.Ramos,232 U.S. 627;Richardsonv.Fajardo SugarCo.,241 U.S. 44;Veitiav.Fortuna Estates, 240 F. 256;Gunterv.Atlantic Coast Line R.R. Co.,200 U.S. 273;Clarkv.Barnard,108 U.S. 436;The Newbattle, 10 P.D. 33;TheTervaete, [1922] P. 259.
The principle that a sovereign, by instituting, or intervening in, a suit, submits itself to cross libel is illustrated by the rule that, when a sovereign comes into court, hePage 338comes "not as a sovereign but as a suitor."Walkerv.UnitedStates, 139 F. 412;United Statesv.Barber Lumber Co., 169 F. 184;King of Spainv.Hullett, 1 Cl. F. 333;Prioleauv.United States, L.R., 2 Eq. Cas. 659; 33 Yale Law Journal, pp. 420, 421.
In the case at bar, the United States is not suing in its capacity asparens patriae, i.e., to assert a right affecting public welfare, but in its private capacity as a property owner.Denver, etc. R.R. Co. v.United States, 241 F. 614.
The first question certified is: Was the District Court empowered by law to render the decree entered? In answer the Government relies upon the proposition established byTheWestern Maid,257 U.S. 419, that the collision inflicted no legal wrong upon the Thekla, and the further proposition that generally speaking a claim that would not constitute a cause of action against the sovereign cannot be asserted as a counterclaim;Illinois Central R.R. Co. v.State PublicUtilities Commission of Illinois,245 U.S. 493,504,505; see alsoNassau Smelting Refining Worksv.United States, ante, 101; and that a cross libel is governed by the same rule.Washington-Southern Navigation Co. v.Baltimore PhiladelphiaSteamboat Co.,263 U.S. 629.
We do not qualify the foregoing decisions in any way, but nevertheless are of opinion that the District Court had power to enter a decree for damages. When the United States comes into Court to assert a claim it soPage 340far takes the position of a private suitor as to agree by implication that justice may be done with regard to the subject matter. The absence of legal liability in a case where but for its sovereignty it would be liable does not destroy the justice of the claim against it. When the question concerns what would be paramount claims against a vessel libelled by the United States were the vessel in other hands, the moral right of the claimant is recognized.The Western Maid,257 U.S. 419,433,434.TheSiren, 7 Wall. 152.The Athol, 1 Wm. Rob. 374, 382. The doubt in this case arises not from the absence of a maritime lien, but from the fact that the counterclaim is not against the Thekla libelled by the United States but for affirmative relief against a different vessel, the F.J. Luckenbach. There certainly is a strong argument for regarding this claim as standing no better than those dealt with in the cases cited by the Government. But we are of opinion that this is to construe the submission of the United States too narrowly. A collision involves two vessels. The trial of such cases in the ordinary course is upon libel and cross libel, consolidated under authority of statute. Rev. Stats. § 921.The North Star,106 U.S. 17. If both parties were in fault the entire damage would be divided equally between them, and it could not be argued that the United States could avoid the consequences of the rule although the damage to the other vessel might bar its recovering anything. This shows that the subject matter is the collision, rather than the vessel first libelled.Bowkerv.United States,186 U.S. 135,139. The libel in such a case is like a bill for an account, which imports an offer to pay the balance if it should turn out against the party bringing the bill.Columbian Governmentv.Rothschild, 1 Sim. 94, 103.Goldthwaitv.Day,149 Mass. 185,187.
The reasons that have prevailed against creating a government liability in tort do not apply to a case likePage 341this, and on the other hand the reasons are strong for not obstructing the application of natural justice against the Government by technical formulas when justice can be done without endangering any public interest. As has been said in other cases the question of damages to the colliding vessel necessarily arose and it is reasonable for the Court to proceed to the determination of all the questions legitimately involved, even when it results in a judgment for damages against the United States.The Nuestra Senora de Regla,108 U.S. 92.The PaqueteHabana,189 U.S. 453,465,466. We gather that our conclusion accords with the opinion of the English Courts.The Newbattle, 10 P.D. 33.The Tervaete, [1922] P. 259, 272. It is said that there is no statute by which the Government accepted this liability. It joined in the suit, and that carried with it the acceptance of whatever liability the courts may decide to be reasonably incident to that act.
It follows from what has been said, without the need of going further, that the stipulation ordered before the United States made itself a party, is valid, and that interest and costs can be recovered from the Fleet Corporation. SeeSloan ShipyardsCorporationv.United States Shipping Board Emergency FleetCorporation,258 U.S. 549. Interest was allowed against the United States inThe Nuestra Senora de ReglaandThe PaqueteHabana, supra, and interest and costs by the judgment affirmed inPorto Ricov.Ramos,232 U.S. 627.Answer to Question 1: Yes.Page 342