Opinion
No. 288.
July 15, 1929.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York.
Libel by John E. Pfeil, as master of the steamship West Segovia, against the United States, under the Suits in Admiralty Act (46 USCA §§ 741-752), to recover for salvage services rendered to the steamship Wampum. From a final decree awarding to the master and seven members of the crew of the West Segovia certain sums in addition to what the respondent had voluntarily paid them, and for which they had executed releases of salvage claims, the respondent has appealed. Reversed, and libel dismissed.
The Wampum, bound from Glasgow to New York, was taken in tow by the West Segovia at latitude 45° 45' north, longitude 50° 21' west, and was towed a distance of 1,050 miles to Gravesend Bay, New York. Both vessels were in ballast and carried very little cargo. When taken in tow the Wampum had exhausted her fuel oil and was also short of fresh water. She had gotten into this predicament under wireless instructions from the United States Shipping Board directing her not to put into St. Johns, Newfoundland, for supplies, as she proposed doing, but to continue upon her course as far as her fuel would take her, and then to obtain assistance from the West Segovia. The latter vessel, also owned by the United States and westward bound to New York, was instructed by the Shipping Board to overtake the Wampum and to tow her into port. She was overtaken before daylight on the morning of November 22, 1918.
Towing began about 11 a.m. and continued until 2:30 a.m. on November 30th, with only one serious incident. On the evening of November 28th, the towing cable parted, due to a strong northeast gale and a following sea, which made steering of the Wampum difficult. The West Segovia stood by during the night, and about noon of the following day was able to pick up a line streamed from the Wampum, and to resume towing. According to the West Segovia's log, the wind was force 8 on the Beaufort scale on the evening when the hawser parted, and on two other days force 7 was recorded. That the services rendered were performed in a seamanlike and competent manner and under conditions which, on one occasion at least, rendered the task difficult, was recognized by the manager of the operating department of the Shipping Board, who wrote a letter commending the master and men of the West Segovia.
The Shipping Board voluntarily distributed as a salvage award to the West Segovia's crew the sum of $2,866.52. The master's share, $357.50, was equivalent to a month's pay; the chief officer's share and the chief engineer's share equaled three-fourths of a month's pay; and the rest received one-half a month's pay. All receipted for their shares by signing, in person or by attorney, a document which was headed as follows:
"Release Salvage Claim."We, the undersigned, by our signatures hereto affixed, do severally certify that we were members of the crew of the steamship West Segovia when the said vessel rendered salvage services to the steamship Wampum, on or about November, 1920, and in consideration of the sums set opposite our respective names, being our respective shares of the total salvage award of 2,866.52 dollars to the crew of the steamship West Segovia, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, do hereby release the said steamship Wampum, the United States, and the Emergency Fleet corporation from all claims which we may have on account of the said salvage service."
In November 1922, some months after he had signed this release, Capt. Pfeil brought the present libel on behalf of himself and nine others. The respondent's answer set up the release of each of the libelants. The claims of two, M.E. Melander, second assistant engineer, and F.S. Mitchell, steward, were subsequently withdrawn. They had been represented by an attorney at law in signing the release. Capt. Pfeil testified, as to the release signed by him, that he did not then know that he had any right against the Shipping Board or its vessel for salvage services, and that he signed in the belief that he was being given an extra month's pay for that service. There is no testimony as to what the others thought when they signed.
The decree awarded the several libelants sums aggregating $7,025, which is $5,768.42 more than they had received under the voluntary award.
William A. De Groot, U.S. Atty., of Brooklyn, N.Y. (Horace M. Gray, Sp. Asst. U.S. Atty., of New York City, of counsel), for the United States.
George Pfeil, of New York City (George A. Voss, of New York City, of counsel), for appellees.
Before MANTON, SWAN, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.
If the salvage paid to the master and crew, amounting to $2,866.52, be taken at the rather common percentage of one-fifth of the total award, it would mean that the total salvage allowance, had the Wampum been under private ownership, would have been slightly less than $14,500. While this sum would seem rather small, in view of the fact that each of the vessels involved was worth at least $1,000,000, it is not so obviously inadequate as to be completely out of harmony with previous decisions. See The Elkridge, 30 F.2d 618 (C.C.A. 2). There $25,000 was allowed for a towage twice as long and involving danger which resulted in loss of life. Here there was little rough weather and probably no danger to the salving vessel or its crew. Moreover, the sums paid respectively to members of the crew were evidently thought sufficient by experienced counsel, who represented several of the seamen. We should be disposed to consider excessive the sums awarded by the decree, if it were necessary to pass upon them; but the precise value of the salvage services need be determined only in case the releases are ineffectual to bar the present suit.
The contention of the libelants appears to be that a release by a seaman will be given no more effect than a receipt on account, provided the court considers the sum paid in settlement less than the full amount to which he was rightfully entitled. It is true that admiralty courts are careful to protect seamen against their own improvidence or ignorance in contracting away their rights. The Prince Frederick, 2 Hagg. 394, 396; Brown v. Lull, Fed. Cas. No. 2018; Rivers v. Lockwood, 239 F. 380 (D.C.E.D.S.C.); 1 Benedict, Admiralty (5th Ed.) 584. But the authorities do not go to the extent of holding that seamen are incompetent to make a binding settlement, or that releases must be upset without any evidence of deception, duress, or misunderstanding, if the court thinks more might have been obtained by litigation.
Prima facie the release is valid. See The Topsy, 44 F. 631, 632 (D.C.S.C.); The Belvedere, 100 F. 498 (D.C.N.D. Cal.); The Charles D. Lane, 106 F. 746 (D.C. Wash.). Where there is evidence that the seaman did not comprehend that he was signing a release, it will be held ineffectual, as in Pac. Mail S.S. Co. v. Lucas, 264 F. 938 (C.C.A. 9); Riegel v. Higgins, 241 F. 718 (D.C.N.D. Cal.); The Henry S. Grove, 22 F.2d 444 (D.C. Md.). But in the instant case there is not a word in the record, except as to Capt. Pfeil, that the libelants did not release their claims with a complete understanding of what they were doing. Several of the crew had attorneys. The others may have relied on the judgment of these attorneys to protect the rights of all. In any event, no one has complained except Capt. Pfeil. He testified that he did not know that he had any right against the Shipping Board or the Wampum for salvage services. But the very document he signed informed him of such right and called upon him to release it. His statement that he thought he was merely receipting for extra wages is contradicted by the plain words of the written instrument. He is a man of some intelligence, able to read and write, and capable of understanding the meaning of the simple instrument which bears his signature. He does not even say he did not read it. It is incredible that he did not know he was signing a release. He does not represent that any one deceived him; he was under no duress. If he knew what he was signing, he made a deliberate settlement, as did the others, of the claim for salvage. We should have to hold that no adjustments of salvage between the owner of the salving vessel and its crew could be effective without approval by a court, if these releases are to be upset. The protection which the law accords to seamen against fraud and overreaching has not been, and should not be, carried to this extreme.
Accordingly the decree is reversed, and the libel dismissed.