RR Ricou & Sons Co. v. Fairbanks, Morse & Co.

• Decision Date: 19 January 1926
• Docket Number: No. 4517.,4517.
• Parties: R. R. RICOU & SONS CO. v. FAIRBANKS, MORSE & CO.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

11 F.2d 103 (1926)

R. R. RICOU & SONS CO. v. FAIRBANKS, MORSE & CO.

No. 4517.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

January 19, 1926.

John E. Hartridge, of Jacksonville, Fla. (John E. & Julian Hartridge, of Jacksonville, Fla., on the brief), for appellant.

Martin H. Long, of Jacksonville, Fla., for appellee.

Before WALKER, BRYAN, and FOSTER, Circuit Judges.

WALKER, Circuit Judge.

The appellee filed its libel in admiralty against "the boat Nuska, her engine, boilers, machinery, tackle, apparel, and furniture, and against all persons intervening for their interest in a cause of action, civil and maritime," for the alleged amount claimed to be due for an engine and equipment described in an alleged written contract between the appellee and the appellant, the claimant and owner of said boat, for other materials, and for labor and services; the libel alleging that the appellee, at the request of the appellant, installed said engine in said boat, furnished and delivered to said boat said equipment and other materials, and performed on and upon her said labor and services, and the libel alleged "that the said boat is now within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of this court." The court overruled exceptions filed by the appellant to the libel, and sustained exceptions to appellant's answer to the libel and exceptions to a cross-libel filed by the appellant. The appeal is from a decree sustaining the claims asserted by the libel; the errors assigned being to the above-mentioned rulings on exceptions to the libel, on exceptions to appellant's answer, and on exceptions to its cross-libel.

The libel was excepted to on the following grounds:

"(1) Because the allegations thereof do not disclose any admiralty or maritime claim or lien upon said vessel whereupon a judgment should be founded.

"(2) Said libel is defective in form, in that the nature of the cause is nowhere stated therein, nor whether it be a cause civil and maritime.

"(3) The libel fails to show that the material and machinery furnished were furnished upon the faith of the boat.

"(4) The allegations of the libel and the contract thereto attached show simply a contract or debt without admiralty jurisdiction."

In argument, the just set out grounds numbered 1, 2, and 4 were sought to be supported by the contention that the allegations of the libel fail to show that the claim asserted is maritime in its nature, in that those allegations do not show the Nuska was a completed boat when the libel was filed or when the mentioned equipment and materials were furnished and the mentioned labor was done. We think that the allegations of the libel fairly import that the structure libeled, namely, the boat Nuska, was a water craft, not an uncompleted structure intended to be a boat when it was finished. In common usage the words "boat" and "vessel" are understood to describe structures so far completed as to be capable of being used as a means of transportation on water. R. S. § 3 (Comp. St. § 3). The statute (41 Stat. 1005, § 30, subsec. P Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 8146¼ooo) provides that "any person furnishing repairs, supplies, * * * or other necessaries, to any vessel, whether foreign or domestic, upon the order of the owner of such vessel, * * * shall have a maritime lien on the vessel," ...