46 U.S.C. § 31341
Persons presumed to have authority to procure necessaries
Historical and Revision Notes | |
|---|---|
Revised section | Source section (U.S. Code) |
31341(a) | 46:972 (1st sentence), 973 |
31341(b) | 46:972 (2d sentence) |
Section 31341(a) lists those persons who are presumed to have authority to procure necessaries for a vessel. These include the owner, master, or a manager at the port of supply; and an officer or agent appointed by the owner, charterer, owner pro hac vice, or buyer in possession of the vessel. This subsection makes no substantive change to law.
Section 31341(b) provides that any person that is tortiously or unlawfully in possession of or in charge of a vessel has no authority to procure necessaries. This subsection makes no substantive change to law.
1989—Subsec. (a)(3). Pub. L. 101–225 substituted “management” for “mangement”.
Section effective
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 90
cases (24 in the last 5 years), 1989–2026 · leading case: Valero Mktg. & Supply Co. v. M/V Almi Sun, IMO, 893 F.3d 290 (5th Cir. 2018).
Valero Mktg. & Supply Co. v. M/V Almi Sun, IMO, 893 F.3d 290 (5th Cir. 2018). “5 46 U.S.C. § 31341 (a). 6 Atlantic & Gulf Stevedores, Inc.”
Leopard Marine & Trading, Ltd. v. Easy St. Ltd., 896 F.3d 174 (2d Cir. 2018). “See 46 U.S.C.A. §§ 31341 , 31342. Allied returned the Vessel to Leopard Marine on November 4, 2011, with significant fuel left in it.”
Ing Bank N v. v. M/v Temara, 892 F.3d 511 (2d Cir. 2018). “" 46 U.S.C. § 31341 (a). "Necessaries" include, among other things, bunkers.”
Ceres Marine Terminals, Inc. v. M/V HARMEN OLDENDORFF, 913 F. Supp. 919 (D. Maryland 1995). “46 U.S.C. § 31341 . 3 The list includes “an officer or agent appointed by— .”
World Fuel Servs. Singapore Pte, Ltd. v. Bulk Juliana M/V, 822 F.3d 766 (5th Cir. 2016). “On summary judgment, the district court applied Singapore law to the formation of the fuel sales contract, enforced the parties’ choice of law as the “General Maritime law of the United States,” and concluded that the vessel lien under the Federal Maritime Lien Act (“FMLA”), 46…”
Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, 133 S. Ct. 735 (2013). “46 U. S. C. §§31341–31343 (2006 ed. and Supp.”
Garanti Finansal Kiralama A.S. v. Aqua Marine & Trading Inc., 697 F.3d 59 (2d Cir. 2012). “46 U.S.C. § 31341 . Because AM brings this contract action against GFK in personam, traditional agency principles apply.”
Redcliffe Americas Ltd. v. M/V TYSON LYKES, 806 F. Supp. 69 (D.S.C. 1992). “Thus, Topgallant Group, as the bareboat time-charterer of the Defendant Vessels, had authority to subject the vessels to maritime liens.”
World Fuel Servs. Trading, DMCC v. M/V Hebei Shijiazhuang, 12 F. Supp. 3d 792 (E.D. Va. 2014). “50 for necessaries provided to the vessel, pursuant to 46 U.S.C. §§ 31341 and 31342. Id. ¶¶ 19, 20 .”
Barcliff, LLC v. M/V Deep Blue, IMO NO. 9215359, 876 F.3d 1063 (11th Cir. 2017). “See 46 U.S.C. § 31341 (a). It is, of course, entirely possible that the facts of a case would show that the general contractor was in an actual agency relationship with the vessel, in which case it would have authority to bind it.”
Galehead, Inc., an Oregon Corp., Cross-Appellee v. M/v Anglia, in Rem, 183 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir. 1999). “See 46 U.S.C. § 31341 (a)(4)(B); see also Trico Marine Operators, Inc.”
Thorn's Diesel Serv., Inc. v. Houston Ship Repair, Inc., 233 F. Supp. 2d 1332 (M.D. Ala. 2002). “More specifically, 46 U.S.C. § 31341 lists those persons who are presumed to have authority to procure necessaries for a vessel: (1) the owner; (2) the master; (3) a person entrusted with the management of the vessel at the port of supply; or (4) an officer or agent appointed…”
— 46 U.S.C. § 31341(a) — 1 case
Valero Mktg. & Supply Co. v. M/V Almi Sun, IMO No. 9579535, 160 F. Supp. 3d 973 (E.D. La. 2016).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.