Per Curiam. 368 U.S. TINSLEY v. CITY OF RICHMOND. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA. No. 315. Decided October 23, 1961. Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. Martin A. Martin, Thurgood Marshall, Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit III and Charles L. Black, Jr. for appellant. J. E. Drinard for appellee. PER CURIAM. The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted. ANDERSON ET AL. v. BALL, COUNTY TREASURER. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS. No. 326. Decided October 23, 1961. Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied. Reported below: 21 Ill. 2d 396, 172 N. E. 2d 760. Charles R. Holton for appellants. Guy R. Williams for appellee. PER CURIAM. The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied. Howard S. Whiteside for appellant. Gardner C. Turner, Attorney General of New Hampshire, pro se. PER CURIAM. The judgment is affirmed. THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS and MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN dissent. Opinion of the Court. 368 U.S. ROPER v. UNITED STATES ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No. 16. Argued October 12, 16, 1961. Decided November 6, 1961. This libel in personam against the United States under the Suits in Admiralty Act was brought by an employee of a stevedoring company to recover damages for injuries sustained while unloading grain from a government-owned ship at a pier. The ship had been deactivated, "mothballed" and rendered unfit for navigation and was being used solely for the storage of grain owned by the Government. Without being prepared or relicensed for navigation, it had been towed to a grain elevator, loaded with grain, towed back to its anchorage and then towed again to the grain elevator for unloading when the grain was sold. The trial court dismissed the libel, holding that, since the vessel was not in navigation, there was no warranty of seaworthiness. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Held: The existence of the warranty of seaworthiness depends on whether the vessel is in navigation, which is a question of fact; on the record in this case, this Court cannot hold that the finding of the trial court in this regard was clearly erroneous. Pp. 20-24. 282 F.2d 413, affirmed. Sidney H. Kelsey argued the cause and filed briefs for petitioner. Leavenworth Colby argued the cause for the United States. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Orrick, Morton Hollander and David L. Rose. MR. JUSTICE CLARK delivered the opinion of the Court. Petitioner, a longshoreman, brought this libel in personam against the United States pursuant to the Suits in Admiralty Act, § 2, 41 Stat. 525, 46 U. S. C. § 742.1 Claiming injuries suffered while aboard a government ship removing grain to an elevator, petitioner sought recovery 1 Other parties, not concerned with our disposition, were impleaded. 20 Opinion of the Court. on the grounds of unseaworthiness and negligence. The District Court dismissed the libel after finding that there was no negligence, and that since the ship in fact was not in navigation there was no warranty of seaworthiness. 170 F. Supp. 763. This dismissal was affirmed by a divided Court of Appeals, 282 F. 2d 413, and a petition for certiorari requesting review of the seaworthiness issue was granted. 365 U. S. 802. We now affirm the judgment below. The S. S. Harry Lane was a liberty ship of World War II origin, which was deactivated from service and "mothballed" in 1945. In this process her supplies, stores, nautical instruments, cargo gear and tackle were removed; her pipes and machinery were drained and prepared for storage; and her rudder, tail shaft and propeller were secured. As a result of such action the ship lost her Coast Guard safety certification as well as her license to operate, both of which were requisite to a vessel in navigation. Indeed, the trial court found that "admittedly" reactivation of the ship would have required a major overhaul. In 1954 the Government was confronted with an urgent need of storage facilities for the country's surplus grain, and a decision was made to utilize as warehouse space the holds of some of the deactivated liberty ships. The ships were not reactivated for navigation nor used for transportation purposes, but were utilized solely as granaries for the storage of the Government's grain. Pursuant thereto, the use of the S. S. Harry Lane was covered by a general storage agreement between the Continental Grain Company and the Commodity Credit Corporation, and it was towed to loading facilities, filled with grain, and returned to the "dead fleet" of some 360 vessels, where it remained for two years. In September 1956 a sale was made of the grain stored in this ship, and she was towed back to the grain elevator for the unloading operation. As in the earlier movement, Opinion of the Court. 368 U.S. no repairs or structural changes preparatory to activating the ship were made; nor was there any attempt to obtain a safety certificate or a license to operate as a vessel in navigation, and none was issued. The movement was by tug, with a licensed riding master and six linemen stationed aboard the dead vessel. The linemen were discharged from the vessel after she was secured to her berth at the grain elevator, the riding master alone remaining to guard the vessel. The line handlers did not sign on as seamen for the vessel, and the tugboat captain was "in charge of the move from the Fleet down to the berth" with the riding master "subject to the orders of the tugboat captain." The unloading operation was carried out by Continental Grain Company. The grain was removed by a "marine leg," a large shore-based mechanism containing a conveyor belt which lifts grain from the ship's hold into the adjacent grain elevator leased by Continental. The marine leg was owned and maintained by Continental, and their employee operated it from a control house in response to signals from longshoremen in the hold. When the grain level dropped to a certain depth, the balance was drawn onto the belt by "grain shovels"-plow-like devices attached by rope to winches in the leg. These shovels were operated by longshoremen employed by a stevedoring company, which had contracted with Continental to aid in the unloading. Petitioner, the foreman of the longshoreman crew, was injured when a latently defective part of the marine leg (a block through which one of the shovel ropes ran) broke and struck him. The entire unloading operation was directed and controlled by Continental and the stevedoring company, and the riding master was without power to supervise the work or inspect the equipment. The test for determining whether a vessel is in navigation is the "status of the ship," West v. United States, |