The Resolute Wilson v. the Resolute
| Citation | 18 S.Ct. 112,42 L.Ed. 533,168 U.S. 437 |
| Decision Date | 06 December 1897 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 135 and 136,s. 135 and 136 |
| Parties | THE RESOLUTE. WILSON v. THE RESOLUTE |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
This was an appeal from the district court for the district of Oregon, awarding to the libelant, George Dowsett, the sum of $825.50 due to him individually, and the further sum of $358.02 due to him as the assignee of one Tellefson, for wages as seamen upon the tug Resolute. The tug was engaged in the business of towing vessels and barges on and over the bar between Yaquina Bay and the Pacific Ocean, and the waters tributary thereto, within the district of Oregon.
The libel, which was filed on April 26, 1894, was in the ordinary form of a libel for seamen's wages, except that it alleged that the vessel was at that time in the hands of a receiver of a circuit court for the state of Oregon. Upon application being made for a warrant for arrest, it was refused upon the ground that the tug was within the custody of a receiver of a state court. Subsequently, and on February 25, 1895, upon affidavit that the receiver had been discharged, and the property sold, the order denying the warrant of arrest, and directing that the libel remain in abeyance until the tug should be discharged from the custody of the state court, was vacated, and a warrant of arrest ordered to issue. The tug having been released upon bond given, the libel was thereupon amended by alleging that while the said services were being rendered the steam tug was in charge of a receiver appointed by the circuit court of the state of Oregon, and that she had since been sold to parties having notice of libelant's claim and had been discharged from such receivership. Exceptions were thereupon filed to the libel upon the ground that it showed that when the services were rendered the steam tug was in charge of, and operated by, a receiver of the Oregon & Pacific Railroad Company, a corporation, the owner of said steam tug; and that no maritime or other lien had arisen by reason of such employment, or by the rendition of such services; and also that the court had no juris- diction in the premises. Upon a hearing before the court, these exceptions were overruled, and leave given to answer the amended libel.
Claimants having elected not to answer the libel, their default was entered, and a final decree awarded in favor of the libelant in the amount claimed by him, whereupon the claimants prayed an appeal to this court; and the district court certified that 'the only question arising upon said appeal is the question as to whether or not, under the facts stated in the amended libel and the exceptions thereto, this court acquired or had jurisdiction to pronounce the said decree.'
J. W. Whalley and Wm. T. Muir, for appellants.
L. B. Cox, for appellee.
Mr. Justice BROWN, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.
The sole question presented by the record in this case is whether the court was correct in assuming jurisdiction of a libel for seamen's wages which accrued while the vessel was in the custody of a receiver, appointed by a state court, upon the foreclosure of a mortgage upon the property of the Oregon & Pacific Railroad Company, owner of the tug.
Jurisdiction is the power to adjudicate a case upon the merits, and dispose of it as justice may require. As applied to a suit in rem for the breach of a maritime contract, it presupposes First, that the contract sued upon is a maritime contract; and, second, that the property proceeded against is within the lawful custody of the court. These are the only requirements necessary to give jurisdiction. Proper cognizance of the parties and subject-matter being conceded, all other matters belong to the merits.
The contention of libelant is that, as a maritime lien is the sole foundation of a proceeding in rem, such facts must be averred as to show that a lien arose in the particular case; or, at least, that if the libel shows that a lien could not have existed, it should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The averment relied upon in this libel is that the vessel was, at the time the services were rendered, in the hands of a receiver appointed by a state court. This fact, however, is not absolutely inconsistent with a lien in rem for seamen's wages. Paxson v. Cunningham, 63 Fed. 132. It may have been expressly bargained for by the receiver; it may be implied from the peculiar circumstances under which the services were rendered; or it might be held to have arisen from the peremptory language of the statute (Rev. St. § 4535) that 'no seaman shall, by any agreement other than is provided by this title, forfeit his lien upon the ship, or be deprived of any remedy for the recovery of his wages to which he would otherwise have been entitled, and every stipulation in any agreement inconsistent with any provision of this title * * * shall be wholly inoperative.' Prima facie, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sing Fuels Pte. Ltd. v. M/V Lila Shanghai (IMO 9541318)
...World Fuel Servs. Trading, DMCC v. Hebei Prince Shipping Co. , 783 F.3d 507, 512 (4th Cir. 2015) (citing The Resolute , 168 U.S. 437, at 439-440, 18 S.Ct. 112, 42 L.Ed. 533 (1897) ). Here, Plaintiff is suing Defendant for an alleged breach in a maritime contract for the bunker fuel. See ECF......
-
Continental Grain Company v. the
...the question, because it has jurisdiction of the vessel by attachment, and of Fassett by monition * * *.'); The Resolute, 168 U.S. 437, 442, 18 S.Ct. 112, 114, 42 L.Ed. 533; Turner v. United States, 2 Cir., 27 F.2d 134, 8 The Ann, 9 Cranch 289, 291, 3 L.Ed. 734; Miller v. United States, 11 ......
-
Ramirez & Feraud Chili Co. v. Las Palmas Food Company
...25, 33 S.Ct. 410, 57 L.Ed. 716; Fauntleroy v. Lum, 1908, 210 U.S. 230, 234-235, 28 S.Ct. 641, 52 L.Ed. 1039; The Resolute, 1897, 168 U.S. 437, 439, 18 S.Ct. 112, 42 L.Ed. 533. In Steele v. Bulova Watch Co., supra, as Mr. Justice Clark points out, unfair trade practices were committed by an ......
-
In re Millenium Seacarriers, Inc.
...Am. Bank of Wage Claims v. Registry of Dist. Court of Guam, 431 F.2d 1215, 1218 (9th Cir.1970)); see also The Resolute, 168 U.S. 437, 439, 18 S.Ct. 112, 42 L.Ed. 533 (1897) ("Jurisdiction . . .[a]s applied to a suit in rem for the breach of a maritime contract . . . [p]resupposes — First, t......