Richard Bertram & Co. v. The Yacht, Wanda, in Rem, Her Engines, Etc. John N. Leopold, No. 71-2010 Summary Calendar. Rule 18, 5th Cir. See Isbell Enter., Inc v. Citizens Cas. Co. Of New York, 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I, 447 F.2d 966 (5th Cir. 1971). · Go Syfert
Search
Richard Bertram & Co. v. The Yacht, Wanda, in Rem, Her Engines, Etc. John N. Leopold, No. 71-2010 Summary Calendar. Rule 18, 5th Cir. See Isbell Enter., Inc v. Citizens Cas. Co. Of New York, 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I, 447 F.2d 966 (5th Cir. 1971). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2001 · …hether this suit is viewed as one to enforce a security interest or mortgage on a vessel, a suit to try or quiet title, a suit for breach of a contract of sale, or a suit upon a contract to construct a vessel, it is not within the admiralty jurisdiction of this court. at p. 967 ✓
64 citation events (19 in the last 25 years) across 21 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Herman Family Revocable Trust v. Teddy Bear (ca9, 2001-06-13)
Treatment trajectory · 1971 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1971 1998 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Herman Family Revocable Trust v. Teddy Bear
9th Cir. · 2001 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
hether this suit is viewed as one to enforce a security interest or mortgage on a vessel, a suit to try or quiet title, a suit for breach of a contract of sale, or a suit upon a contract to construct a vessel, it is not within the admiralty jurisdiction of this court.
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Herman Family Revocable Trust v. Teddy Bear
9th Cir. · 2001 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
hether this suit is viewed as one to enforce a security interest or mortgage on a vessel, a suit to try or quiet title, a suit for breach of a contract of sale, or a suit upon a contract to construct a vessel, it is not within the admiralty jurisdiction of this court.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Opaskar v. 33' 1987 Chris-Craft Amerosport Motor Vessel
N.D. Ohio · 2023 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
contract for the sale of a ship is not a maritime contract.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Crowley American v. Richard Sewing
11th Cir. · 1999 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
a maritime contract is one which concerns transportation by sea, relates to navigable waters and concerns maritime employment.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lewco Corp. v. One 1984 23' Chris Craft Motor Vessel
D. Minnesota · 1995 · confidence medium
But whether this suit is viewed as one to enforce a security interest or mortgage on a vessel, a suit to try or quiet title, a suit for breach of a contract of sale, or a suit upon a contract to construct a vessel, it is not within the admiralty jurisdiction of this Court.” Id. at 967-968.
examined Cited as authority (rule) J.A.R., Inc. v. M/v Lady Lucille, the Dinner Cruise/excursion Vessel, Etc., Network Marine, Inc. (3×) also: Cited "see"
5th Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
The Wanda, 447 F.2d at 967-68.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Carter-Green-Redd, Inc. v. USS Cabot/Dedalo Museum Foundation
E.D. La. · 1991 · confidence medium
“The mere fact that a ship is involved will not bring the cause within the jurisdiction of the admiralty court.” Bertram, 447 F.2d at 967.
discussed Cited "see" Lieblong v. Abella
D. Haw. · 2020 · signal: accord · confidence high
Cary Marine, Inc. v. Motorvessel Papillon, 872 F.2d 751, 755 (6th Cir. 1989); accord Richard Bertram & Co. v. Yacht Wanda, 447 F.2d 966 , 967 (5th Cir. 1971) (per curiam) (affirming district court order included in the appendix).5 Under the conceptual approach, admiralty jurisdiction depends on “whether the contract references ‘maritime service or maritime transactions.’” ProShipLine Inc. v. Aspen Infrastructures Ltd., 609 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Norfolk, 543 U.S. at 24 , 125 S. Ct. 385 ).
discussed Cited "see" Stemcor USA, Inc. v. America Metals Trading, LLP
E.D. La. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
Importantly, “[a]dmiralty jurisdiction does not arise simply because a contract refers to a ship, or to the transportation of goods by ship.” Indagro S.A. v. Bauche S.A., 652 F.Supp.2d 482, 489 (S.D.N.Y.2009); see Richard Bertram & Co. v. Yacht Wanda, 447 F.2d 966 , 967 (5th Cir.1971) (“The mere fact that a ship is involved will not bring the cause within the jurisdiction of the admiralty court.”).
cited Cited "see" Alonzo J. Kling and Rene L. Martin v. Dr. Roland Waguespack, M. D. And Mrs. Carol Waguespack, Wife of Dr. Roland Waguespack
5th Cir. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See Richard Bertram & Co. v. Yacht, WANDA, 447 F.2d 966 , 967-68 (5th Cir. 1971); New Orleans Steve-doring Co. v. United States, 439 F.2d 89, 92 (5th Cir. 1971).
discussed Cited "see" J.A.R., INC., Plaintiff– v. M/V LADY LUCILLE, the Dinner Cruise/Excursion Vessel, etc., et al (2×)
unknown court · signal: see · confidence high
See Jones, 625 F.2d at 47 (5th Cir.1980).2 That is, the case before us is essentially "a pure and simple dispute between a vessel manufacturer and buyer concerning a contract for construction and delivery of a vessel." Id., distinguishing Richard Bertram & Co. v. The Yacht, Wanda, 447 F.2d 966 (5th Cir.1971).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Quail Cruises Ship Management Ltd. v. Agencia De Viagens CVC Tur Limitada
S.D. Fla. · 2010 · signal: see also · confidence low
It is well settled that “neither contracts for construction nor for sale of a vessel are maritime in nature.” Hatteras of Lauderdale, Inc. v. Gemini Lady, 853 F.2d 848, 850 (11th Cir.1988); see also Richard Bertram & Co. v. The Yacht, Wanda, 447 F.2d 966 , 967 (5th Cir.1971) (noting the “prevailing rule” that “a contract for the sale of a ship is not a maritime contract”); 1 Benedict on Admiralty, § 112 (Matthew Bender 2009) (“Although never held by the Supreme Court, it has been well established by the lower courts that contracts for the sale of a vessel are non-maritime.”).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Mullane v. Chambers
1st Cir. · 2003 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Richard Bertram & Co. v. The Yacht, Wanda, 447 F.2d 966 , 967 (5th Cir.1971).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Gaster Marine Recovery & Sales, Inc. v. M/V \The Restless I\""
S.D. Fla. · 1998 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Richard Bertram & Co. v. The Yacht, Wanda, 447 F.2d 966 , 967 (5th Cir.1971) (“Although subject to some criticism, the prevailing rule has been that a contract for the sale of a ship is not a maritime contract.”); Jack Neilson, Inc., v. Tug Peggy, 428 F.2d 54, 57 (5th Cir.1970) cert. denied, 401 U.S. 955 , 91 S.Ct. 973 , 28 L.Ed.2d 238 (1971) (“There are valid arguments in favor of the proposition that admiralty courts should take jurisdiction over claims arising out of contracts for the sale of a ship....”).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Privilege Yachting, Inc. v. Teed
D. Del. · 1994 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Richard Bertram & Co. v. The Yacht, Wanda, 447 F.2d 966 , 967-68 (5th Cir.1971), where in a similar case involving a dispute over the contract price for the construction of a vessel, the court stated, "whether this suit is viewed as one to enforce a security interest or a mortgage on a vessel, a suit to try or quiet title, a suit for breach of a contract of sale, or a suit upon a contract to construct a vessel, it is not within the admiralty jurisdiction of this Court.”
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Hatteras of Lauderdale, Inc. v. Gemini Lady
S.D. Fla. · 1987 · signal: see also · confidence low
In the court’s view, this is a distinction without a difference. “[Ajdmiralty will not entertain suits where the substantive rights of the parties flow from a con *1528 tract to sell or construct a vessel.” Jones v. One Fifty Foot Gulfstar Motor Sailing Yacht, 625 F.2d 44 , 47 (5th Cir.1980); see also Richard Bertram & Co. v. The Yacht, Wanda, 447 F.2d 966 , 967-68 (5th Cir.1971).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Brown v. Motor Vessel \Numero Uno\""
D.V.I. · 1983 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Richard Bertram & Co. v. Yacht, Wanda, 447 F.2d 966 , 967 (5th Cir. 1971); 1 E.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Richard Bertram & Co.
v.
The Yacht, Wanda, in Rem, Her Engines, Etc. John N. Leopold, No. 71-2010 Summary Calendar. Rule 18, 5th Cir. See Isbell Enterprises, Inc v. Citizens Casualty Co. Of New York, 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I
966.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Aug 23, 1971.
447 F.2d 966
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published
2 passages pin-cited by 2 cases
Pinpoint authority: #35,781 of 633,719
Citer courts: Eleventh Circuit (1) · N.D. Ohio (1)

447 F.2d 966

RICHARD BERTRAM & CO., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
The YACHT, WANDA, in rem, her engines, etc.; John N.
Leopold, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 71-2010 Summary Calendar.*
*Rule 18, 5th Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc
v.
Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5 Cir. 1970, 431
F.2d 409, Part I.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 23, 1971.

George O. Mitchell, Dixon, Dixon, Lane & Mitchell, Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appellant.

Richard M. Leslie, Phillip G. Newcomm, Shutts & Bowen, Miami, Fla., for defendants-appellees.

Before COLEMAN, SIMPSON, and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

[*~966]1

The hereunto appended Order of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida is

2

Affirmed.

APPENDIX

ORDER

3

(Style and Number Omitted)

4

(Filed March 30, 1971)

5

FULTON, Chief Judge.

6

This cause came before the Court upon defendant's motion to dismiss. This is a suit in the nature of a possessory or petitory action brought in admiralty by the plaintiff Richard Bertram & Company. The plaintiff Seeks to try the title to the yacht 'Wanda' and seeks an order from this Court declaring plaintiff the legal owner of the vessel.

7

Plaintiff Bertram & Company apparently negotiated with a Dutch company for the construction of a vessel. Upon completion of the vessel, the defendants were to cause the vessel to be brought to the United States and to be documented. The plaintiff has attached a copy of a letter purporting to be the contractual agreement between plaintiff and defendants, which provides, among other things, that the title to the yacht would remain in the plaintiff Bertram until the defendants paid $166,800 to the plaintiff. It is alleged that this sum was never paid; thus, the plaintiff now seeks to have title declared in its name.

[*966]8

Although subject to some criticism, Flota Maritima Browning v. M/V Ciudad de la Habana, 218 F.Supp. 938 (D.Md.1963), the prevailing rule has been that a contract for the sale of a ship is not a maritime contract. Flota Maritima Browning de Cuba v. Snobl, 363 F.2d 733 (4th Cir. 1966); Williams v. The Atte-Wode, 1941 A.M.C. 1428 (N.D.Ill.1941); Gilmore & Black, The Law of Admiralty, 25 (1957); 1 Benedict on Admiralty, Section 67 (6th ed. 1940). Similarly, an admiralty court does not have jurisdiction to compel specific performance of a contract to purchase a vessel. The Guayaquil, 29 F.Supp. 578 (E.D.N.Y.1939). Nor is a contract for the construction of a vessel within the admiralty jurisdiction of the Court. Thames Towboat Co. v. The Francis McDonald, 254 U.S. 242, 41 S.Ct. 65, 65 L.Ed. 245 (1920); Silver v. Sloop Silver Cloud, 259 F.Supp. 187 (S.D.N.Y.1966); 1 Benedict on Admiralty, Section 69 (6th ed. 1940). And prior to the enactment of the Ship Mortgage Act of 1920, the admiralty court had no jurisdiction over a suit to foreclose a mortgage on a vessel. Bogart v. The Steamship John Jay, 17 How. 399, 402, 15 L.Ed. 95; 2 Am.Jur.2nd, Section 122 (1962). Today, if a mortgage is within the Act, admiralty jurisdiction is exclusive; if the mortgage is not within the Act, admiralty has no jurisdiction. The Thomas Barlum, 293 U.S. 21, 55 S.Ct. 31, 79 L.Ed. 176 (1934).

[*967]9

The boundaries of admiralty jurisdiction over contracts have always been difficult to draw. A maritime contract is one which concerns transportation by sea, relates to navigable waters and concerns maritime employment. General Engine & Machine Works v. Slay, 222 F.Supp. 745 (S.D.Ala.1963). The mere fact that a ship is involved will not bring the cause within the jurisdiction of the admiralty court. But, whether this suit is viewed as one to enforce a security interest or mortgage on a vessel, a suit to try or quiet title, a suit for breach of a contract of sale, or a suit upon a contract to construct a vessel, it is not within the admiralty jurisdiction of this Court. See especially, Williams v. The AtteWode, 1941, A.M.C. 1428 (N.D.Ill.1941). Thereupon, it is

10

Ordered and adjudged that defendants' motion to dismiss be and the same is hereby granted.