Charles Minturn, Appellant v. Lafayette Maynard, Gilbert Grant, Thomas Wells, Lucien Skinner, Frederick Billings, Charles Brenham, Isaac Mott De La Montagne Neal, and Thomas Chapman
| Decision Date | 01 December 1854 |
| Citation | 58 U.S. 477,15 L.Ed. 235,17 How. 477 |
| Parties | CHARLES MINTURN, APPELLANT, v. LAFAYETTE MAYNARD, GILBERT A. GRANT, THOMAS G. WELLS, LUCIEN SKINNER, FREDERICK BILLINGS, CHARLES J. BRENHAM, ISAAC T. MOTT, J. DE LA MONTAGNE, E. M. NEAL, AND THOMAS L. CHAPMAN |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
BRENHAM, ISAAC T. MOTT, J. DE LA MONTAGNE, E. M. NEAL,
AND THOMAS L. CHAPMAN.
THIS was an appeal from the district court of the United States for the northern district of California.
The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.
It was argued by Mr. Brent and Mr. May, for the appellant, and by Mr. Cutting, for the appellees.
The respondents were sued in admiralty, by process in personam. The libel charges that they are owners of the steamboat Gold Hunter; that they had appointed the libellant their general agent or broker; and exhibits a bill, showing a balance of accounts due libellant for money paid, laid out, and expended for the use of respondents, in paying for supplies, repairs, and advertising of the steamboat, and numerous other charges, together with commissions of the disbursements, &c.
The court below very properly dismissed the libel, for want of jurisdiction. There is nothing in the nature of a maritime contract in the case. The libel shows nothing but a demand for a balance of accounts between agent and principal, for which an action of assumpsit, in a common law court, is the proper remedy. That the money advanced and paid for respondents was, in whole or in part, to pay bills due by a steamboat for repairs or supplies, will not make the transaction maritime, or give the libellant a remedy in admiralty. Nor does the local law of California, which authorizes an attachment of vessels for supplies or repairs, extend to the balance of accounts between agent and prircipal, who have never dealt on the credit, pledge, or security of the vessel.
The case is too plain for argument.
The judgment of the court of admiralty, dismissing the libel for want of jurisdiction, is affirmed with costs.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the district court of the United States for the northern district of California, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof it is now here ordered, adjudged, and decreed by this court, that the decree of the said district court in this cause be, and the same is hereby affirmed, with costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baltimore Line Handling Co. v. Brophy
...provide that service to vessels. Id. at 612, 111 S.Ct. 2071. In so holding, the Exxon Court expressly overruled Minturn v. Maynard, 58 U.S. (17 How.) 477, 15 L.Ed. 235 (1854), which had “been interpreted by some lower courts as establishing a per se rule excluding agency contracts from admi......
-
Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Great Am. Ins. Co. of N.Y.
...abrogating the spatial “incidental” exception); Exxon Corp., 500 U.S. at 611–12, 111 S.Ct. 2071 (overturning Minturn v. Maynard, 58 U.S. 477, 17 How. 477, 15 L.Ed. 235 (1854), which established a per se rule against exercising admiralty jurisdiction over at least some agency contracts, as i......
-
Ingersoll Mill. Mach. Co. v. M/V Bodena
...continuing validity, has recently affirmed the longstanding, well settled rule laid down by the Supreme Court in Minturn v. Maynard, 58 U.S. (17 How.) 477, 15 L.Ed. 235 (1854), that general agency contracts are not cognizable in admiralty. Peralta Shipping, 739 F.2d at 804. General agency c......
-
Hadjipateras v. PACIFICA, SA
...1859, 22 How. 330, 63 U.S. 330, 16 L.Ed. 249; Grant v. Poillon, 1858, 20 How. 162, 61 U.S. 162, 15 L.Ed. 871; Minturn v. Maynard, 1855, 17 How. 477, 58 U.S. 477, 15 L. Ed. 235; The Steamboat Orleans, 11 Pet. 175, 36 U.S. 175, 9 L.Ed. 1 Omitting the unnecessary motion and order for the allow......
-
ADMIRALTY LAW - ANOTHER WAY IN: SECOND CIRCUIT GRANTS ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION TO FORWARD FREIGHT AGREEMENTS - d'Amico Dry, Ltd. v. Primera Mar.
...to determine its status. Id. at 60810. The Court in Cent. Gulf Lines, Inc. most importantly overturned the holding in Minturn v. Maynard, 58 U.S. 477 (1855), that held a per se bar on agency contracts on admiralty jurisdiction. Id. at 608. The Court in Minturn considered agency contracts to......