## Facts

- In 1903, the barge *Harold* lost a large cargo of silver ingots in the Arthur Kill near Story Flats; an early recovery effort retrieved about 85%, leaving the remainder on the bottom.
- By the late 1970s, the unrecovered silver’s estimated value had risen into the multi-million-dollar range, generating renewed interest.
- Three groups asserted competing rights to undertake recovery: an amateur diver group (Hener group) and two commercially organized teams (Ocean group and American group).
- The Ocean and American groups conducted substantial preparation, including historical research, selecting likely target areas, preliminary dives, acquiring specialized equipment, and mobilizing vessels and gear to the site.
- No group had located or recovered any of the remaining silver before litigation.
- The Coast Guard established a safety zone in the busy navigation area, effectively halting diving and salvage activity; it claimed no proprietary interest but sought a judicial allocation of salvage opportunity for safe regulation.
- The Hener group sued to enjoin enforcement of the safety zone; the Ocean group intervened as a plaintiff and the American group intervened as a defendant asserting competing salvage claims.

## Issues

1. Whether the remaining *Harold* silver should be governed by the law of salvage rather than the law of finds (i.e., whether the cargo was abandoned).
2. Whether any claimant had priority as a “salvor in possession,” and if not, how priority should be allocated among competing would-be salvors.
3. Whether the Coast Guard could maintain a safety zone that restricted salvage activity, and how that regulation should interact with admiralty salvage rights.

## Decision

- The court held the law of salvage applied because the silver was lost property, not abandoned property subject to the law of finds.
- The court found no party had obtained “salvor in possession” status because none had located or recovered any of the silver or established continuous, effective control over recovery operations.
- In allocating priority among competitors, the court declined to award exclusive salvage rights to the Hener group and recognized the stronger claim of the commercial groups whose concrete preparations and mobilization showed greater capability and seriousness.
- The court upheld the Coast Guard’s safety-zone authority as a valid navigational and safety measure, while indicating salvage operations should proceed only under an admiralty framework that allows both court supervision and regulatory control.

## Legal Principles

- The law of finds applies only upon a clear showing of abandonment; abandonment requires proof the owner intentionally relinquished all rights, and it is not inferred merely from the passage of time.
- Lost maritime property generally remains subject to salvage: a salvor may earn a salvage award for successful recovery but does not obtain title by mere discovery efforts.
- “Salvor in possession” requires actual possession or continuous, effective operational control directed at recovery; asserted knowledge, intent, or sporadic activity is insufficient.
- Admiralty courts may exercise equitable authority to supervise competing salvage claims and allocate priority to encourage efficient, competent recovery and to reduce conflict.
- Governmental safety regulation of navigable waters (including safety zones) may coexist with salvage activity, but private salvage efforts may be structured through court oversight to permit safe access rather than unbounded competition.

## Conclusion

The court treated the unrecovered *Harold* silver as lost property governed by salvage law, found no exclusive salvor-in-possession rights because no recovery had begun, and favored the commercially prepared salvors over the amateur group while permitting Coast Guard safety restrictions to be administered within a court-supervised salvage framework.


Hener v. United States, 525 F. Supp. 350 (S.D.N.Y. 1981)