273 F. Supp. 926 | E.D. La. | 1967
On June 30, 1966, Walter E. Heller & Company (Heller) filed a libel, in rem, against the M/V MR. ED, to enforce a mortgage granted by the owner, J & M Equipment Rental, Incorporated. The vessel was seized and sold by the United States Marshal, and the net proceeds were deposited in the registry of the Court. Heller then filed a motion to have its mortgage declared a valid preferred ship mortgage under 46 U.S.C.A. § 922, to have judgment entered in the amount of its claim, and to have the net proceeds of $8,850.00, deposited in the registry of the Court, disbursed to it. In the meantime, interventions by various claimants, including Gator Supply Company, Incorporated (Gator Supply), were made in order to assert maritime liens.
On July 13, 1967, this Court held that Heller had acquired a valid preferred ship mortgage on the M/V MR. ED.
Heller has filed a motion for judgment and disbursement of funds, urging that Gator Supply has no valid maritime lien. In addition, Heller contends that even if a valid maritime lien in favor of Gator Supply once existed, it is now barred by laches. But neither of Heller’s arguments is well founded.
EXISTENCE OF LIEN
46 U.S.C.A. § 971 provides, in part, as follows:
“Any person furnishing repairs, supplies * * * or other necessaries, to any vessel * * * upon the order of the owner of such vessel, or of a person authorized by the owner, shall have a maritime lien on the vessel, which may be enforced by suit in rem, and it shall not be necessary to allege or prove that credit was given to the vessel.”2
“If libelant shows upon a hearing that the supplies in question were in fact for the libeled vessel, and, in fact, reached it, and were such as are ordinarily required aboard such a vessel, and thus reasonably necessary to its operation, he is entitled to his lien, provided he also shows that they were furnished upon the order of the owner and master * * * ”
Cases relied on by Heller do not control the result here. Unlike the situation presented in The Bethulia,
LACHES
I likewise reject the contention that laches bars the lien obtained by Gator Supply. Laches involves not only delay, but also prejudice resulting from that delay. The crucial issue in every case is “whether it would be inequitable, because of the delay, to enforce the claim.”
Since Gator Supply has a valid maritime lien which arose prior to the date on which Heller recorded its preferred ship mortgage, that lien ranks above that of Heller.
The Clerk will prepare a judgment or decree in accordance with this opinion.
. Walter E. Heller & Company v. M/V MR. ED, her engines, ete., E.D.La., 1967, 270 F.Supp. 830.
. Heller does not contend that the ordering of the goods was not properly authorized.
. Cf. Jeffrey v. Henderson Bros., 4 Cir., 1951, 193 F.2d 589, 594.
. E.D.N.C., 1954, 125 F.Supp. 677, 678.
. D.C.Mass., 1912, 200 F. 876.
. See, e. g., Jeffrey v. Henderson Bros., 4 Cir., 1951, 193 F.2d 589, 593-594; Bankers Trust Co. v. Hudson River Day Line, 2 Cir., 1937, 93 F.2d 457, 459; The Yankee, 3 Cir., 1916, 233 F. 919, 925; McKenzie v. The G/S Jim-Jet II, E.D.N.C., 1955, 133 F.Supp. 804, 807.
. 1920, 254 U.S. 1, 41 S.Ct. 1, 65 L.Ed. 97.
. See Gilmore and Black, The Law of Admiralty § 9-36 (1957). The authors observe, at page 547, that, “By the time [Mr. Justice Brandéis] had finished, not even the purest legal genius could have declared which of these multiple facts, or which combination of them, had resulted in the denial of lien.”
. Id. at page 547.
. Czaplicki v. The S.S. Hoegh Silver-cloud, 1956, 351 U.S. 525, 533, 76 S.Ot. 946, 951, 100 L.Ed. 1387, 1395.
. See 46 U.S.O.A. § 921.