Steinbraker v. Crouse

Sloan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Harry Steinbraker, plaintiff and appellant, on Decern ⁴⁵⁴ ber 22nd, 1934, filed his bill of complaint in the Circuit Court for Charles County, wherein he alleged that, by deed of assignment dated December 3rd, 1934, from the Potomac Realty Company, Limited, a body corporate of the State of Delaware (amended by agreement at the hearing to read “State of California”), recorded in Charles County, he had acquired “all the right, title, and interest of the said the Potomac Realty Company, Ltd., in and to all lead, copper, brass and other metal of whatever nature owned by it, or to which it has title in and around the hundred and sixty-nine (169) vessels, which said vessels were formerly owned by the Western Marine & Salvage Company, the said vessels being located in Mallow’s Bay, near Sandy Point, in Charles County, Maryland”; that “a certain Lorenzo D. Crouse (appellee), his agents, servants and employees, disregarding the interests of” the plaintiff “in and to the lead, copper, brass and other materials contained in said vessels, * * * have entered upon and seized said vessels and are at present engaged in shipping and selling such metals to parties unknown to” the plaintiff; and that as a result of “such depredations” the “value and interest” of the plaintiff’s “holding in said vessels and metal is being permanently injured.” The bill prayed an injunction and an order passed as prayed. The defendant answered denying that “the said Harry Steinbraker ever acquired any right, title or interest in and to the lead, copper, brass and other materials” mentioned in the bill of complaint, and admitted that “he, his agents, servants and employees, have heretofore entered upon the sunken hulls of certain vessels mentioned in the bill and engaged in the removal, shipment and sale of certain materials salvaged therefrom, but deny that in so doing they committed any trespass, or disregarded any right, title or interest of the plaintiff for the reason that the materials taken by them were a part of the abandoned wreckage of certain ships that had therefore been dismantled, sunk and abandoned by the Western Marine & Salvage Company.” ⁴⁵⁵ Although the appellee, Lorenzo D. Crouse, was the only person named as defendant, this suit is really directed against numerous residents of Charles County, variously estimated by witnesses at from fifty to seventy-five, who had been engaged in the same business, on the same wreckage, as the defendant. Testimony was taken in open court and the case submitted on bill, answer, and evidence, and at the conclusion and after an opinion, of which this is virtually an adoption, a decree was passed dissolving the injunction and dismissing the bill, from which the plaintiff appeals.

According to the evidence, the Western Marine & Salvage Company, a Delaware corporation, on June 30th, 1923, bought from one George D. Perry, of the City of San Francisco, Cal., 232 vessels, according to name, which had been the property of the Government of the United States, the purpose of the purchase being to salvage, dismantle, and remove all portions of the vessels which might be marketable and then distroy the remains. One hundred and sixty-nine of the vessels so bought were floated to the Potomac river and anchored in Mallow’s Bay, an indenture of the Potomac River, opposite and almost surrounded by a farm known as Sandy Point in Charles County, in navigable, public waters. By deed dated April 21st, 1924, one Henry Koester conveyed to the Western Marine & Salvage Company the Sandy Point farm containing 566⁴ acres. The Western Marine & Salvage Company then began its salvage operations, after installing on the Sandy Point farm such machinery and equipment as was necessary to the operation.

The method and scope of the operation was to remove all machinery, boilers, pipes, and engines, and to strip the vessels of all metal easily removable; the vessels were then towed into Mallow’s Bay, where they were burned to the water’s edge and then pulled as near to the shore as possible and the salvaging of metal continued, until the spring of 1931. The Western Marine & Salvage Company stated in a letter to its attorney, Mr. E. Cortlandt Parker, of Washington, who represented it in its ⁴⁵⁶ negotiations with the Potomac Realty Company and Steinbraker, that it had ceased operations in salvaging in May, 1932, but the evidence is that it had ceased operations the year before, and only had watchmen at Sandy Point until the machinery and equipment on the shore was removed by the purchaser, and there is evidence that the public and the residents in the neighborhood began the removal of metal from the burned and sunken hulls without interference while the watchmen were there. After the hulls were burned, the company continued its salvaging operations until in March, 1931, when, to all appearances, it abandoned the project, leaving a watchman in charge of the personal property on the Sandy Point farm, and he remained there until the summer of 1932. The Western Marine & Salvage Company apparently was a temporary corporation, formed for the purpose of wrecking and salvaging all that it regarded as valuable and marketable of the 232 vessels purchased from the Government through George D. Perry, one of the stockholders.

On the 24th day of July, 1925, the Western Marine & Salvage Company was granted a permit by the War Department of the Government “to ground, burn and beach in Mallow’s Bay, Potomac River, albout two hundred hulls.” The details with respect to burning, removal, and the obstruction to navigation are all set out with such particularity that it would unnecessarily prolong this opinion to recite them. The time limit on this permit was December 31st, 1928. The War Department, on January 3rd, 1931, granted another permit to the same company, wherein it was recited that application had been made “for authority to extend the area in Mallow’s Bay, Potomac river, now used for grounding, burning and beaching wooden hulls, two hundred (200) feet channel-ward.” In that permit it was stated, “that if the structures or work herein authorized is not completed on or before the-day of December ,31, 1931, this permit, if not previously revoked or specifically extended, shall cease and be null and void,” and it appears from the ⁴⁵⁷ evidence that no such permit or extension has since been granted, nor is there any evidence that an extension was since requested, and the evidence is that none was granted to any one since December 31st, 1931. The Western Marine & Salvage Company, by deed dated November 30th, 1932, conveyed the Sandy Point farm to the Potomac Realty Company, Limited, a corporation of the State of California, without including or mentioning the remains of the burned and sunken hulls.

In the month of December, 1932, the Western Marine & Salvage Company was dissolved, as stated in the letter of the Potomac Realty Company, Limited, to Mr. Parker, of December 22nd, 1934, “chiefly for the reason that at that time, under conditions then prevailing, and due to heavy overhead for maintaining the office and a large force of men, it was deemed too expensive to continue salvaging operations, and for the further reason that the stockholders of said salvage company at that time desired its dissolution in order that they might ascertain what loss had actually been sustained by them as stockholders in that company. The stockholders did not at that time contemplate, nor have they at any time since then contemplated, abandoning these vessels, but as there were only three principals interested in this project, who have been for many years and still are closely associated, they felt that if conditions again warranted any further salvaging they could do so in the nature of a joint venture without the formality of a corporate existence.” In spite of the statement contained in this letter that they had not abandoned the burned wreckage, or contemplated returning, we find in the record sufficent evidence to justify the chancellor’s conclusion that the burned and sunken hulls had been abandoned, and that this intention to not abandon was an after-thought, more than two years afterward, inspired by the plaintiff, a junk dealer, who had had dealings with the defendant and others so engaged and who saw the possibilities of a more favorable market. The rule of law with respect to abandoned property is ⁴⁵⁸ very simple. Property is abandoned when the owner walks off and leaves it with no intention to again claim it or exercise rights of ownership over it; and when this is done, it belongs to anyone who takes possession of it.

With respect to real estate, it is not quite so simple, as the one entering must serve his time of prescription and possession before he can acquire a legal title. In the case of the abandonment of an easement, and this is the kind of most frequent occurrence, abandonment means reversion to the then owner of the fee. It is said in Brantly on Personal Property, sec. 183, that “he who takes possession, cminto dominandi, of a thing which has been abandoned by the owner, immediately becomes the proprietor of it by occupancy. A thing is abandoned when the owner throws it away, or leaves it without custody because he no longer wishes to account it as his property; whence it follows that he ceases at once to be the owner.

Both the intent to abandon and the fact of abandonment are necessary. Whether property has been abandoned depends upon the intention of the party, the length of time during which the owner has been out of possession being only important as showing this intention.” 1 R.C.L. 4; 1 CJ. p. 9. The rule in this state with respect to the abandonment of an easement is the same in principle as that just stated by Mr. Brantly concerning personal property. It was said by this court in Vogler v. Geiss, 51 Md. 407, 410 , in an opinion by Judge Alvey: “It is now very well settled, by