230 F. 543 | W.D. Wash. | 1916
Intervening libelant alleges, in substance, that the gasoline fishing boat Sterling was being outfitted for a fishing expedition, and that the entire crew, except the master and engineer, were Austrians who had pursued the occupation of fishermen for many years, and that the custom of Austrian fishermen is to be furnished with wines and spirituous liquors, and “that this custom is so ingrained in the Austrian fishermen who have immigrated to this country that even after a number of years it is impossible to induce Austrian fishermen to enter into a contract to engage in fishing unless they are guaranteed their wines and spirituous liquors,” and then alleges that $74.95 worth of liquor was sold, and seeks to establish a maritime lien against the vessel.
Claimant files exceptions, upon the ground that the liquors “were neither supplies nor necessaries for the operation of said fishing boat,” and that the articles were improper, detrimental, and wholly unnecessary. Are liquors “supplies or other necessaries” under Act June 23, 1910, 36 Stat. 604 ? The term “necessaries” includes whatever is fit and proper for the service upon which the vessel is engaged, or whatever would have been ordered by a prudent owner, if present. 26
“The libel of F. A. Buck & Oo. is for the price of liquors and supplies for a bar which was conducted on board the Robert Dollar for the profit of the charterer. It is always optional with the owner of a vessel whether to conduct a bar on board or not, and, as it is not essential to the navigation of the vessel, or to the safety and comfort of passengers, I cannot regard bar supplies as ‘necessaries’ in the sense in which that word is used in the twelfth admiralty rule. Under that rule, materialmen cannot sue in rem for supplies furnished, other than necessaries.”
Whisky is not necessary for the navigation of the ship; nor do the allegations in the libel show it to be necessary to the safety and comfort of the crew. Cases have been cited from other jurisdictions involving statutes of states. The Mayflower (D. C.) 39 Fed. 41; The Shrewsbury (D. C.) 69 Fed. 1017; and The Satellite (D. C.) 188 Fed. 717. These cases, however, do not throw any light upon the issue here.
I do not think that the intervening libelant has brought himself within the provisions of the act of Congress, supra, and the exceptions must be sustained.