Constantine v. The River Queen
| Decision Date | 19 May 1880 |
| Citation | 2 F. 731 |
| Parties | CONSTANTINE and others v. THE SCHOONER RIVER QUEEN. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
F. A Wilcox, for libellant.
W. W Goodrich, for claimant.
CHOATE D.J.
This is a libel against the schooner River Queen to recover for services alleged to have been rendered by the libellant in weighing, inspecting and measuring the cargo preparatory to its delivery, and which, by the contract of affreightment was required to be done by the vessel before delivery. The service is alleged to have been rendered at the request of the master and owners of the vessel. It is not alleged whether the vessel is domestic or foreign, nor that the service was rendered upon the credit of the vessel.
The owner appeared as claimant, and filed exceptions to the libel (1) that the court has no jurisdiction upon the allegations of the libel, and (2) that the contract upon which the libel is founded is not a maritime contract, such as to give the court jurisdiction.
This case was heard with the case of The Windermere, ante, 722 and submitted as involving upon the exceptions the same point as that case; the only difference referred to by counsel being the difference in the nature of the service rendered. The point, therefore, does not seem to be raised whether, if the vessel is a domestic vessel, the libellant's claim, if in the nature of a claim for necessaries furnished to the vessel, is limited to a claim in personam, on the facts stated in the libel, on the principle declared in The General Smith, 4 Wh. 438. Nor is it made a ground of exception, as in The Windermere, ante, 722, that the libel does not state a cause of action.
The first exception seems not equivalent to that. The only point made in argument in support of either exception is that the contract declared on is not maritime. While, therefore, I have some doubt whether other points might not be raised under the first exception, I shall assume that this is the only point which the claimant desires to make.
Upon this question I cannot distinguish the case from that of The Onore, 6 Ben. 564, in which it was held that the services of a cooper, in putting the cargo in order for delivery, performed partly on the ship and partly on the wharf, were maritime services. The reasons for this conclusion are given at length in the case of The Windermere, ante, 722.
As Judge Benedict says, in The Onore: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ford Motor Co. v. WALLENIUS LINES, ETC.
...does not involve loading, unloading, or a stevedoring service. The two cases primarily relied upon by Ford are Constantine v. The Schooner River Queen, 2 F. 731 (S.D.N.Y.1880), and Coast Wrecking Co. v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 7 F. 236 (E.D.N.Y.1881). Although both of these cases involved damage ......
-
The John Shay
... ... a maritime service ... The ... River Queen (1880) 1 F. 731, Judge Choate held that the ... weighing, inspecting, and measuring of the ... ...
-
The Seguranca
...by Judge Choate in The Erinagh, 7 F. 231; though in the latter case the vessel was foreign. In the cases of The Onore, 6 Ben. 564; The River Queen, 2 F. 731; and The Senator, 21 F. 191; similar services were held create a maritime lien, without reference to the vessel's home port; and in th......
-
TJ Moss Tie Co. v. Tanner
...a direct relation to navigation and commerce and are maritime in their nature. The C. Vanderbilt (D. C.) 86 F. 785, 789; Constantine v. The River Queen (D. C.) 2 F. 731; 1 Corpus Juris, 1275, note 4(c). The contention that recovery for the injury which resulted in the disability and death o......