CHARLES B. KANE, D/B/A KANE'S DIESEL & TRUCK REPAIR, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
MOTOR VESSEL LEDA, HER ENGINES, ETC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES, WESTSIDE AUTO SUPPLY, INC. AND AMERICAN MARINE & EQUIPMENT CO., INC., INTERVENORS

5th Cir. | 1974-03-29
No. 73-1782
Before DYER, MORGAN and RO-NEY, Circuit Judges.
491 F.2d 899 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (1974) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court held that a party furnishing work and materials at the request of a charterer is not entitled to a maritime lien on the vessel, but may have a claim for unjust enrichment against the owner.


Facts & Procedural History

Kane furnished work and materials to a vessel at the request of the charterer. The trial court found the charterer was not authorized by the owner to …

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM:

In this admiralty action the district court found that Kane, who furnished work and materials to the vessel M/V LEDA, at the request of the charterer, was not entitled to a maritime lien on the vessel. Judgment was entered against the owner, however, for unjust enrichment damages.

The trial court made extensive findings of fact.1 It found that the charterer was not “a person authorized by the owner” to bind the vessel for the labor and materials furnished by Kane and that the latter did not, therefore, have a maritime lien on the vessel. 46 U.S.C.A. § 971. But the court further found that Kane had an admiralty claim for unjust enrichment in personam against Leda Towing Company, Inc., the owner. The findings are not clearly erroneous. McAllister v. United States, 1954, 348 U.S. 19, 75 S.Ct. 6, 99 L.Ed. 20. On the contrary, the record fully supports these findings.

By a plethora of arguments based on Louisiana law, Kane argues that an admiralty court should apply state law to create a lien on the vessel or to revoke the subsequent sale of the vessel. To do this, as the district court properly held, would be destructive of the principle of uniformity in federal maritime law. Moreover, to subordinate the maritime law to Louisiana law, as Kane argues, would defeat the provisions of 46 U.S.C.A. § 973.

By our disposition of this federal action, we do not, of course, intimate any views on the merits of claims Kane may have under state law.

We have considered the other points on appeal urged by Kane and find them to be without merit.

Affirmed.

. On March 14, 1972, full findings of fact and conclusions of law were made. On October 27, 1972, further findings and conclusions were made granting unjust enrichment damages against Leda Towing Co., Inc., but refusing such damages against the Vials, purchasers of the vessel. Finally, on February 6, 1973, the court rendered its opinion on plaintiff’s motion to amend the findings of fact and for a new trial.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw