Evansville Bowling Green Packet Co v. Chero Cola Bottling

Citation70 L.Ed. 805,271 U.S. 19,46 S.Ct. 379
Decision Date12 April 1926
Docket NumberNo. 127,127
PartiesEVANSVILLE & BOWLING GREEN PACKET CO. v. CHERO COLA BOTTLING Co. et al
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Messrs. Chauncey I. Clark, of New York City, and John D. Welman, of Evansville Ind., for appellant.

Messrs. James T. Cutler, Paul H. Schmidt, and Isidor Kahn, all of Evansville, Ind., for appellees.

Mr. Justice BUTLER delivered the opinion of the Court.

Appellant owned a wharfboat in the Ohio river at Evansville, Ind. May 14, 1922, it sank, causing dam- age to appellee's merchandise thereon. Appellant filed a petition in admiralty for limitation of liability. Appellees answered, and after a trial, at which much evidence as to the character of the structure was given, the District Court found that it was not a vessel within the meaning of the statutes sought to be invoked, held that the court was without jurisdiction, and dismissed the cause. The appeal is under section 238, Judicial Code (Comp. St. § 1215), and the question of jurisdiction alone is certified.

Section 4283, Revised Statutes (Comp. St. § 8021), provides:

'The liability of the owner of any vessel, for any embezzlement, loss, or destruction, by any person, of any property, goods, or merchandise, shipped or put on board of such vessel, or for any loss, damage, or injury by collision, or for any act, matter, or thing, lost (loss), damage, or forfeiture, done, occasioned, or incurred, without the privity, or knowledge of such owner or owners, shall in no case exceed the amount or value of the interest of such owner in such vessel, and her freight then pending.'

Section 3, Revised Statutes (Comp. St. § 3), provides:

'The word 'vessel' includes every description of watercraft or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on water.'

The Act of June 19, 1886, c. 421, § 4, 24 Stat. 79, 80 (Comp. St. § 8027), makes the provisions relating to limitation of liability apply to 'all vessels used on lakes or rivers or in inland navigation, including canal boats, barges, and lighters.'

Appellant was engaged in operating steamboats between Evansville and places on the Green river in Kentucky. The wharfboat in question was built in 1884 and was used at Hopefield, Ark., on the Mississippi river. In 1901 it was towed to Madison, Ind., where it was overhauled, and then to Louisville, Ky., where it was used. In 1910, after more repairs at Madison, it was taken to Evansville. Appellant acquired it in 1915. Each winter it was towed to Green river harbor to protect it from ice. While in use at Evansville it was secured to the shore by four or five cables, and remained at the same point, except when moved to conform to the stage of the river. The lower part of the structure was rectangular, 243 feet long, 48 feet wide, and 6 feet deep. It was built of wood, and, to strengthen it and keep the water out, was lined around the sides and ends, extending 18 or 20 inches from the bottom, with concrete eight inches thick. It had no machinery or power for propulsion, and was not subject to government inspection, as are vessels operated on navigable waters. There was plumbing in the structure, and it was connected with the city water system; it obtained current for electric light from the city plant, and had telephone connections. Appellant's office and quarters for the men in charge were located in one end of the structure. There were floats and an apron making a driveway between the land and a door near each end. The wharfboat was used to transfer freight between...

To continue reading

Request your trial
57 cases
  • Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • January 15, 2013
    ...the point home.For another thing, the bulk of precedent supports our conclusion. In Evansville & Bowling Green Packet Co. v. Chero Cola Bottling Co., 271 U.S. 19, 46 S.Ct. 379, 70 L.Ed. 805 (1926), the Court held that a wharfboat was not a "vessel." The wharfboat floated next to a dock; it ......
  • Caldwell v. St. Charles Gaming Co.
    • United States
    • Louisiana Supreme Court
    • January 29, 2020
    ...support of its rationale, the Court discussed with approval the long-standing case of Evansville & Bowling Green Packet Co. v. Chero Cola Bottling Co. , 271 U.S. 19, 46 S.Ct. 379, 70 L.Ed. 805 (1926), in which a wharfboat previously in navigation was no longer a "vessel" after it was perman......
  • Baker v. Gulf Island Marine Fabricators, LLC
    • United States
    • Longshore Complaints Court of Appeals
    • July 14, 2015
    ...to sea floor is not a vessel under Jones Act). [15] The Lozman Court opined that the difference between the holdings in Stewart and Evansville was that the dredge was but not primarily, used (and designed in part to be used) to transport workers and equipment over water while the wharfboat ......
  • Matter of Sedco, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • March 30, 1982
    ...a floating loading dock and storage facility has been excluded from the Act's coverage. Evansville & Bowling Green Packet Co. v. Chero Cola Bottling Co., 271 U.S. 19, 46 S.Ct. 379, 70 L.Ed. 805 (1926). Similarly, a floating dry-dock has not been considered a vessel because its purpose and a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Maritime law.
    • United States
    • Defense Counsel Journal Vol. 62 No. 3, July 1995
    • July 1, 1995
    ...weather is not sufficient to convert its status to a vessel. See Evansville & Bowling Green Packet Co. v. Chero Cola Bottling Co., 271 U.S. 19....(20) The plaintiff also argued without success that the Supreme Court in Southwest Marine Inc. v. Gizoni(21) had rendered the status of the B......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT