## Facts

- Hall Brothers Marine Railway & Shipbuilding Co. operated a shipyard, marine railway, and machine shops on navigable waters at Winslow, Washington.
- North Pacific Steamship Co. owned the steel steamship *Yucatan*, which had been wrecked and submerged and required extensive structural and mechanical repairs to return to service.
- The parties agreed Hall Brothers would tow the *Yucatan* from Seattle to Winslow, haul her out on a marine railway onto dry land near the machine shop, and provide labor, materials, and facilities needed to make repairs at stated prices for items such as labor, tug use, hauling out, railway use, and materials.
- Repairs were performed largely under the general direction of the shipowner’s superintendent, who approved time sheets, while Hall Brothers supplied the workforce and repair facilities.
- After completion of repairs restoring the vessel to maritime service, a balance remained unpaid; Hall Brothers sued in admiralty in personam for the unpaid account, and North Pacific filed a cross-libel for damages from alleged repair delay.
- The district court awarded Hall Brothers recovery and dismissed the cross-libel; North Pacific moved to vacate and dismiss for lack of admiralty jurisdiction, arguing the contract was non-maritime because much work occurred on land and involved use of shore facilities.

## Issues

1. Whether an agreement to tow a vessel to a shipyard, haul it onto dry land on a marine railway, and provide labor, materials, and facilities to repair an existing vessel in maritime service is a maritime contract within federal admiralty jurisdiction.
2. Whether performance of substantial repair work on land, and owner supervision of the repair process, removes the contract from admiralty jurisdiction.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the decree for Hall Brothers and held that admiralty jurisdiction existed.
- The contract was an “entire” maritime contract for repair of an existing vessel devoted to maritime use; the use of the marine railway and machine shop was incidental to the repair undertaking.
- The land-based location of much of the work did not defeat jurisdiction because the controlling factor is the nature of the contract, not the place of performance.
- Owner supervision of repairs did not change the maritime character of the repair contract.

## Legal Principles

- Admiralty contract jurisdiction turns on the nature and subject matter of the agreement; the place of performance is evidentiary, not determinative.
- Contracts to build a vessel (or supply construction materials) are not maritime, but contracts to repair an existing vessel already launched and engaged in maritime service are maritime.
- It is immaterial to maritime character whether repairs are made while the vessel is afloat, in dry dock, or hauled out upon land.
- A supplier of repairs or necessaries may proceed in admiralty against the vessel in rem or against the owner in personam.
- Shipowner superintendence over repair work does not negate the maritime nature of a repair contract.

## Conclusion

The Court held that an agreement focused on restoring an existing vessel to seaworthiness for maritime service is a maritime repair contract within admiralty jurisdiction, even when repairs are performed on land using a marine railway and under the owner’s supervision.


North Pacific S.S. Co. v. Hall Bros. Marine Ry. & Shipbuilding Co., 249 U.S. 119 (1919)