|
|
Dampskibsselskabet Dannebrog v. Signal Oil Co., 310 U.S. 268 (1940)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Dampskibsselskabet Dannebrog v. Signal Oil Co., 310 U.S. 268 (1940)
Dampskibsselskabet Dannebrog v. Signal Oil & Gas Co. of California No. 662 Argued April 1, 1940 Decided May 20, 1940 310 U.S. 268
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Syllabus
1 Where, by the terms of a charter party, the charterer has the direction and control of the vessel, and there is no prohibition against the creation of liens for necessary supplies ordered by the charterer, one who, on the order of the charterer, supplies fuel oil to the vessel is entitled to a maritime lien, even though the charter requires the charterer to "provide and pay for" fuel. Construing the Act of June 23, 1910, as amended. Pp. 271, 275.
Semble, where the charter party prohibits the creation of a lien for supplies ordered by the charterer, no lien will attach.
2. The fact that the supplier had a general contract with the charterer to supply "the fuel oil requirements of any and all vessels owned, chartered, or operated" by the latter held not to defeat the lien where such contract did not provide that the oil should be supplied on the sole credit of the charterer or negative the creation of maritime liens for supplies actually furnished to the vessels in satisfying their requirements. P. 276.
3. The Act of June 23, 1910, as amended, provides that "any person to whom the management of the vessel at the port of supply is entrusted" shall be presumed to have authority to procure supplies upon the credit of the vessel. Held that, where, apart from mere navigation, the vessel is placed under the direction and control of the charterer as the hirer of the vessel, who as such may determine to what port she shall go and what she shall carry, subject only to specified exceptions, then the charterer, in the absence of any provision to the contrary, is deemed to be entrusted with the vessel’s management, within that provision of the Act. Pp. 277, 279-280.
106 F.2d 896 affirmed.
Certiorari, 309 U.S. 644, to review the affirmance of decrees in admiralty, 25 F.Supp. 594, sustaining maritime liens.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Dampskibsselskabet Dannebrog v. Signal Oil Co., 310 U.S. 268 (1940) in 310 U.S. 268 310 U.S. 269. Original Sources, accessed November 22, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=XTJK8ZJL4HSNLGD.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Dampskibsselskabet Dannebrog v. Signal Oil Co., 310 U.S. 268 (1940), in 310 U.S. 268, page 310 U.S. 269. Original Sources. 22 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=XTJK8ZJL4HSNLGD.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Dampskibsselskabet Dannebrog v. Signal Oil Co., 310 U.S. 268 (1940). cited in 1940, 310 U.S. 268, pp.310 U.S. 269. Original Sources, retrieved 22 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=XTJK8ZJL4HSNLGD.
|