You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Galehead, Inc. v. M/V Anglia

Citation: Not availableDocket: 98-4922

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit; August 9, 1999; Federal Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this case, Galehead, Inc. pursued maritime liens against the M/V Anglia due to unpaid fuel procurements arranged by the vessel's charterer, Genesis Container Line. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida determined that Galehead was entitled to a lien for one of the three incidents in question, specifically the transaction involving Polygon Energy Services. Polygon successfully established a maritime lien under 46 U.S.C. 31342 by proving it provided necessaries to the vessel under the owner's order, despite not being the physical supplier. In contrast, Asamar, which supplied fuel in two incidents, did not meet the statutory requirement since it acted at Polygon's request, lacking direct authorization from the vessel's owner. The court affirmed Polygon's lien for $24,376.00, amending the district court's previous figure of $20,349.29, and emphasized that profit inclusion does not negate a lien's validity. The judgment affirmed the partial summary judgments for Asamar's liens and Polygon's lien, but vacated and remanded the decision on the lien's value to reflect the corrected amount.

Legal Issues Addressed

Authority to Procure Necessaries

Application: Asamar failed to establish a lien as it did not supply necessaries at the order of the vessel's owner or an authorized agent.

Reasoning: Asamar fails to meet the third element because it did not supply the bunkers at the order of the vessel's owner or an authorized representative.

Maritime Liens under 46 U.S.C. 31342

Application: To establish a maritime lien, necessaries must be provided to a vessel under the order of the owner or an authorized agent. Polygon met these criteria while Asamar did not.

Reasoning: The ruling emphasized that to establish a maritime lien, one must provide necessaries to a vessel under the order of the owner or an authorized agent, in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions of 46 U.S.C. 31342.

Profit Inclusion in Maritime Liens

Application: The inclusion of profit in the lien's value does not undermine the maritime lien's validity, as it reflects the underlying contract's worth.

Reasoning: The precedent suggests that profit on supplied necessaries does not preclude a maritime contract.

Provision of Necessaries

Application: Polygon is considered to have provided necessaries even though it did not physically deliver the goods, based on its contractual relationship with Genesis.

Reasoning: Polygon satisfies all three statutory elements for providing necessaries to a vessel, despite not being the physical supplier of the bunkers.