Whitmire v. Cobb
Cases that cite this one
7 later published cases cite this decision. The 6 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Aqua Log, Inc. v. Lost & Abandoned Pre-Cut Logs & Rafts of Logs (United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia 2015)
- Aqua Log, Inc. v. Lost & Abandoned Pre-Cut Logs & Rafts of Logs (United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia 2015)
- Aqua Log, Inc. v. Lost & Abandoned Pre-Cut Logs & Rafts of Logs (United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia 2015)
- Tidewater Salvage, Inc. v. Weyerhaeuser Co. (9th Cir. 1980)
- Colby v. Todd Packing Co. (United States District Court for the District of Alaska 1948)
- Whitmire v. Hudson (5th Cir. 1898)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Tbe assignments of error raise two questions: Is the case made by the libel one of salvage? and whether the amount allowed by the district court is erroneous, because excessive. - Timber found drifting with the tide on deep water, in the harbor and out of the control of the owners, is the subject of salvage. Bywater v. A Raft of Piles, 42 Fed. 917. See, also, Muntz v. A Raft of Timber, 15 Fed. 555; A Raft of Spars, 1 Abb. Adm. 485, Fed. Cas. No. 11,529; Fifty Thousand Feet of Timber, 2 Lowell, 64, Fed. Cas. No. 4,783. Following these decisions, we hold that the case made by the libel is one of salvage.
As to the amount allowed: While we are of opinion that the salvage services in question were of a low order, and would have been adequately compensated on the basis of work and labor, yet we cannot hold that the amount allowed was so manifestly excessive as to justify its revision on appeal. The district judge acted upon proof that the public custodian of lost timber and lumber, who himself was entitled to demand and receive for each stick of timber recovered and delivered 75 cents, paid regularly to salvors of timber 50■ cents per stick turned over to him. While the price paid by the public custodian was arbitrary, and not based upon services actually rendered, yet we are not prepared to say the district judge, in adopting it, proceeded upon a wrong principle or abused the discretion, vested in him. The decree appealed from is affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.