Cargo Carriers, Inc. v. Humphrey, Secretary of the Treasury
Opinion
This appeal is from a summary judgment for defendants (appellees) in a suit wherehy plaintiff (appellant) sought a declaratory judgment and injunction.
Appellant is the owner of two. vessels, a non-propelled tank barge of 1892 tons and a tug boat of 99 tons. These vessels are uniquely designed and constructed so that the tug may be securely fitted into an indented stern of the barge and otherwise so integrated with it as that the two units may function for all practical purposes as a self-propelled lank barge for shipment of inflammable liquid cargoes in bulk.
The Coast Guard ruled that the units when joined and operated together should be treated as a single vessel for purposes of inspection and certification. This re-suited in imposing costly safety requirements, especially as to crew, inapplicable to either unit alone. The complaint seeks, relief from the ruling and its burdensome requirements. The critical question is Aether there is statutory authority to support the action of the Coast Guard m «0 treating the combination as a single vesseh ^ &lcy c*° ^lavc Power ^en the units so integrated and carrying raflammable cargo m bulk would concededly ^ subject to inspection under R.S. § 4417a, as added June 23, 1936, 49 Stat. 1889, as amended Oct. 9, 1940, c. 777, § 3, 54 Stat. 1028, 46 U.S.C.A. § 391a. 1 District Judge Píne in an °Pinion disPoshl- of tl,c case 2 seems to suggest that provisions of the Act of June 20, 1936, c. 628, 49 Stat. 1544, 46 U.S.C.A. § 367, 3 would also apply, presumably upon the theory that the consolidated vessel operated upon the high seas within the purview of said Act, hut whethei. ^at js so ¿oes no^ appear from the rec- or(j; therefore the question is not before us
We agree with Judge Pine’s conclusions that the Coast Guard officials acted reasonably and correctly in construing the term “vessel” to comprehend the two craft when operated as a single unit and accordingly classifying them as a vessel subject to inspection and certification. We also agree with his view that to “require the two craft to be treated as separate vessels would ignore realities and frustrate, by artificc> the requirements of the law, the Impose ot which is to promote safety at sea." 4
Affirmed.
. “All vessels, regardless of tonnage, size, or manner of propulsion, and whether self-propelled or not, and whether carrying freight or passengers for hire or not, that shall have on board any inflammable or combustible liquid^ cargo in bulk * * * whsll be considered steam vesseis for the purposes of title 52 of the Revised Statutes and shall be subject to the provisions thereof * * The safety and crew requirements imposed on appelJ ant’s vessel by the Coast Guard are applicable to vessels subject to the provisions of title 52 of the Revised Statutes, as amended and supplemented by subse- — A- » «*- ments, see R.S. § 4463, as amended, 46 U.S.C.A. § 222.
. Cargo Carriers v. Snyder, D.D.C. 1952, 104 F.Supp. 258.
. “Existing laws covering the inspections of steam vessels are hereby made applicable seagoing vessels of three hundred gross tons and over propelled in whole or jn part by internal-combustion engines * * *. The term ‘seagoing vessels’ as used -m thig section shall be construed to mean vessels which in (he usual course of their employment proceed outside the line dividing the inland waters from the bivh sens * * * ”
. Cargo Carriers v. Snyder, 104 F.Supp. at page 260.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- CARGO CARRIERS, Inc. v. HUMPHREY, Secretary of the Treasury, Et Al.
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published