## Facts

- A fierce fire burned on Pier 5 in Hoboken, New Jersey, from the evening of August 24, 1921, until the morning of August 25, 1921.
- The government-owned steamship *Leviathan* lay bow-in at the south side of adjacent Pier 4.
- The *Leviathan* could not be towed out; she had only a skeleton crew, and moving her under her own power would have required many hours and additional personnel.
- Wind conditions tended to carry fire across the slip toward the *Leviathan*; her port side was scorched and fire broke out several times on her superstructure.
- Ammunition stored near the bulkhead created an added risk of explosion.
- Merritt & Chapman Derrick & Wrecking Co. operated two specialized fire-fighting/salvage boats, *Commissioner* and *Chapman Brothers*.
- The boats continuously fought the fire by playing heavy streams of water on the burning pier and nearby threatened areas for substantial portions of the night.
- The company alleged its actions prevented flames from spreading from Pier 5 to the *Leviathan* and claimed salvage compensation from the United States under the Tucker Act.
- The petition did not allege a request for or acceptance of salvage services on behalf of the *Leviathan*, and the alleged services were directed to the pier and nearby property rather than to the vessel itself.

## Issues

1. Whether a salvage claim lies when fire-fighting efforts aimed at a nearby wharf incidentally and indirectly benefit a vessel, absent any request for or acceptance of service on the vessel’s behalf.
2. Whether the petition stated a cause of action for salvage against the United States under the Tucker Act.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a cause of action.
- The Court held that an incidental and indirect benefit to a ship from efforts to extinguish a nearby wharf fire, undertaken to save unrelated property, does not support salvage without a request for or acceptance of the service on the ship’s behalf.
- Reading the petition as a whole, the alleged “aid” to the *Leviathan* arose from wharf-centered fire suppression, not from direct salvage service rendered to the vessel as such.

## Legal Principles

- Salvage compensation is not recoverable where the vessel’s benefit is merely incidental and indirect to emergency services directed at other property.
- Absent request for or acceptance of service on a vessel’s behalf, wharf fire-fighting that indirectly protects the vessel does not create a salvage obligation.
- General allegations of “direct aid and benefit” are controlled by specific pleaded facts describing the actual nature and target of the services.

## Conclusion

Because the alleged services consisted of fighting a pier fire to protect nonvessel property, and any advantage to the *Leviathan* was only incidental and indirect without request or acceptance on her behalf, the petition failed to state a salvage claim and was properly dismissed.


Merritt & Chapman Derrick & Wrecking Co. v. United States, 274 U.S. 611 (1927)