The F. & P.M. No. 2

Decision Date17 January 1888
Citation33 F. 511
PartiesTHE F. & P.M. NO. 2. v. THE F. & P.M. NO. 2. CARTIER
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin

Markham Williams & Bright, for libelant.

E. Mariner and F. M. Hoyt, for respondent.

DYER J.

This is a suit in admiralty, brought by the libelant, a citizen of Michigan, against the steam-vessel R. & P.M. No. 2, owned and employed in navigation by the Flint & Pere Marquette Railroad Company, to recover the value of a raft of logs, which, on the eighteenth day of September, 1886, were being towed by a tug from a point on the east shore of Lake Michigan to Ludington. The libel alleges that the raft or boom of logs was being towed into the harbor of Ludington; that the steamer, in entering the same port, negligently ran into the raft, striking it with such force as to break the boom, and scatter the logs; and that, in consequence of the collision many of the logs floated out into the lake, and were lost. The libel further alleges, and the answer admits, that the steamer was duly enrolled and licensed for the coasting trade, and employed in navigation and commerce upon the lakes within the admiralty jurisdiction of the United States. The defense made by the answer is that the collision occurred through the negligence of the tug which had the logs in tow. A motion is now made by the respondent to dismiss the libel for want of jurisdiction. As the place where the collision happened was upon public navigable waters, no issue arises concerning the question of locality as a ground of jurisdiction. The point presented is whether the raft of logs in question is the subject-matter of maritime jurisdiction so as to enable the owner to maintain a suit in admiralty against the steamer, to recover for the injury and loss sustained.

In the case of The W. H. Clark, 5 Biss. 308, Judge HOPKINS expressed a serious doubt whether 'admiralty jurisdiction could be sustained against a raft of lumber,' in a case of collision; and cited Tome v. Lumber, Taney, 547 quoting Chief Justice TANEY'S remarks in that case, that cribs of lumber 'are not vehicles intended for the navigation of the sea. They are not recognized as instruments of commerce or navigation by any act of congress; they are piles of lumber, and nothing more, fastened together and placed upon the water. ' But in the case of the W. H. Clark, it was not necessary for Judge HOPKINS to decide, and he did not decide, the question whether, in a case of collision, a remedy in admiralty could be enforced either in favor of or against a raft of lumber, for the reason that the steamer having the raft in tow was found in fault, and therefore liable for the injury done to the boat collided with. What he said, therefore, on the subject of jurisdiction, so far as it related to the raft of lumber, was obiter. In Tome v. Lumber, supra, an attempt was made to maintain a suit in admiralty, for an alleged salvage service in rescuing certain rafts of lumber which had been driven from their anchorage in the Susquehanna river, and were found floating down the stream. It was there held that rafts anchored in a stream are not the subjects of admiralty jurisdiction, where the right of property or possession is alone concerned; that they are piles of lumber, and nothing more, placed upon the water until suitable vehicles are ready to receive and transport them to their destined port; and that any assistance rendered to them, even when in danger of being broken up and swept down the stream, is not a salvage service, in the sense in which that word is used in courts of admiralty. As will be observed, the action was a possessory one, instituted in a court of admiralty by the owners of the lumber, to recover it from a party who was seeking to hold it for salvage service; and it was held that the remedy of the owners to regain possession was an ordinary action of replevin. Clearly, the case can have no greater application to the question under consideration, than its particular facts and the character of the action warrant.

In the case of A Raft of Cypress Logs, 1 Flip. 543, it was held that a libel in rem cannot be maintained for services in navigating a raft of logs. That was a case of contract, and it was held that 'in actions of contract the agreement sued on must be maritime in its character; it must pertain in some way to the navigation of a vessel, having carrying capacity and employed as an instrument of travel, trade, or commerce, though its form, size, and means of propulsion are immaterial. ' The Gen. Cass, Brown, Adm. 334. As a raft is not a ship or vessel, it was held that the contract of service upon which the suit was based, was not a maritime contract, and, therefore, that a court of admiralty had not jurisdiction of the action. But, in deciding the case, Judge BROWN was careful to say that it was unnecessary 'to consider whether a raft may not, for some purposes, be the subject of admiralty jurisdiction.'

Thackeray v. The Farmer, Gilp. 524, was also a case of contract and it was there decided that a contract for the payment of labor on board of a vessel employed in carrying fuel to the city of Philadelphia from the opposite shore of the Delaware river, could not be enforced by a suit in rem, in the admiralty. It may well be doubted whether, in the present state of the law of admiralty, this case would not we accepted as authoritative, even upon the question there decided. It is worthy of notice that it arose when the admiralty jurisdiction was greatly restricted,-- in fact confined to waters within the ebb and flow of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Victory Carriers, Inc v. Law 8212 54 18 8212 19, 1971
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • December 13, 1971
    ...(ED Mich.1872); Holmes v. Oregon & C.R. Co., 5 F. 75, 77 (Ore.1880); The Arkansas, 17 F. 383, 384 (SD Iowa 1883); The F. & P.M. No. 2, 33 F. 511, 513 (ED Wis.1888); The H. S. Pickands, 42 F. 239, 240 (ED Mich.1890); Hermann v. Port Blakely Mill Co., 69 F. 646, 647 (ND Cal.1895); The Strabo,......
  • The Mackinaw
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Oregon
    • November 23, 1908
    ... ... weight in determining the jurisdiction than the fact that the ... cause of the injury was. The Arkansas, 17 F. 383, 387; The F ... & P.M. No. 2 (D.C.) 33 F. 511, 515; Hughes, Adm. 183. And, ... again, it seems more arbitrary than rational to treat ... attachment to the soil as a peremptory ... ...
  • Berton v. Tietjen & Lang Dry Dock Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • January 13, 1915
    ... ... but to be moved laterally, and to be easily freed from her ... mooring log when desired ... By ... article 3, Sec. 2, of the United States Constitution, the ... judicial power of the United States Courts is extended ... 'to all cases of admiralty ... [219 F ... ...
  • Bowers Hydraulic Dredging Co. v. Federal Contracting Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • June 27, 1906
    ... ... action was brought by the Bowers Hydraulic Dredging Company ... against the Federal Contracting Company to recover the hire ... of Dredge No. 2, under a written contract to pay $3,000 per ... month, from July 1st to July 24th, 1905, amounting to ... $2,322.48. The respondent defends, (1) on ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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