Amis v. Steamboat Louisa

• Decision Date: 31 October 1845
• Citation: 9 Mo. 629
• Parties: AMIS v. STEAMBOAT LOUISA.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

9 Mo. 629

AMIS

v.STEAMBOAT LOUISA.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1845.

APPEAL FROM ST. LOUIS COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

LEONARD and BAY, for Appellant. 1st.The court below erred in instructing the jury, that they were bound, on the evidence before them, to find for the defendant.This instruction virtually took the whole case from the jury.Chamberlin v. Smith's Adm'r, 1 MoR. 482;Labeaume v. Dodier etal., 1 Mo. R. 618;Hughes v. Ellison, 5 Mo. R. 111;Morton v. Reeds, 6 Mo. R. 73;Glasgow and Harrison v. Copeland, 8 Mo. R. 268. 2nd.The evidence clearly established the truth of the allegation, that the barges where appurtenant to the steamboat, and the statute renders the boat liable for labor done by mechanics and others, in “fitting out, furnishing and equipping” the boat.The barges were certainly considered as necessary appendages to the steamboat, in order to enable her to accomplish the object of her owners, in transporting freight from St. Louis to New Orleans. Revised Statutes of 1835, act concerning Boats and Vessels, p. 102, § 1; act of February 12th, 1839, concerning Boats and Vessels;Session acts of 1838-9, p. 13.The execution of the note by the clerk by order of the captain, was an admission of the justice of the claim, as well as the amount of the demand.Byrne v. Steamboat Elk, 6 Mo. R. 555.

A. HAMILTON, for Appellee. 1st.This court will not reverse, because of an erroneous instruction, if the party complaining has shown no right of action.6 Mo. R. 280.Nor if it is apparent from the record, that the instructions given could not have been prejudicial to him.7 Mo. R. 417;8 Mo. R. 225.The instruction of the court, was in effect, a demurrer to the plaintiff's evidence.The defendant introduced no testimony. 2nd.The execution of the note by the clerk, under the direction of the master, cannot per se operate to impose a lien, if none legally exist.The master, it is true, is authorized to bind the boat, but the scope of his authority is declared in the act.This transaction was not within his powers.Rev. Laws 1835, p. 102, § 1.He could only have given a note, in the names of the barges. 3rd.That the barges were owned by the proprietors of the Louisa, and were in the occasional use of that boat, as lighters in carrying freight, did not make them. in legal contemplation, like a yawl for instance, parts of her necessary furniture and equipment.They were separate and distinct existencies--were not built with reference to the Louisa, but for another purpose, were distinguished by names, and were susceptible of registration.Another steamboat, used in the same way, as a lighter, might with equal propriety be considered an appurtenance and part of the principal boat. 4th.The testimony did not show that the barges were appurtenances, or parts and parcels of the Louisa, but established directly the contrary, and that they were only in the occasional or temporary use of the boat, as lighters.

MCBRIDE, J.

This was a proceeding under the Statute, Rev. Code 1835, p. 102, and the supplemental act of 1839, Sess., acts 1838-9, p. 13.To the original complaint filed in the cause, the defendant demurred, assigning as special causes, that it appeared by the complaint, that the sum claimed by the plaintiff accrued on account of work done, in the calking and repairing of two keelboats, used in navigating the waters of this State, and not for work done on the said steamboat Louisa; and that it was not alleged, and did not appear, that the keelboats belonged to, and were appurtenances of the said steamboat Louisa The Court of Common Pleas sustained the demurrer, and the plaintiff asked and obtained leave to file an amended complaint.The amended complaint stated the cause of action to be for work and labor of certain barges, connected with and appurtenant to the said steamboat Louisa.

To the amended complaint the defendant pleaded, 1st, nil debet. 2nd, that...