The Queen

Good Law
206 F. 148·1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1534
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 12, 1913Nos. 1,850, 1,851California2,407 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Ross, J.

These cases were argued and submitted together. They are libels against the respective ships mentioned for alleged pilotage services. Both cases are alike, except that in that against the ship Umatilla a question is raised as to the sufficiency of the tender of the services sued for.

The cases were submitted upon an agreed statement of facts, from which it appears that the libelant in each case was at all the times mentioned in the libel a duly licensed pilot of the port of San Francisco, holding a license from the United States local inspectors of steamships, and also one from the California state board of pilot commissioners, of the port of San Francisco; that the libelant in the case of the Queen tendered to the master of that steamship, as she was entering the port of San Francisco on the 14th day of August, 1905, his services as a pilot, which services were refused; that the steamer Queen was at the time a duly registered American vessel, and was then com *150 pleting a voyage from an American port on Puget Sound to the port of San Francisco, via Victoria, British Columbia, and for some time prior thereto had been engaged in making voyages between the port of San Francisco…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.