Endner v. Greco

Citation3 F. 411
PartiesENDNER v. GRECO.
Decision Date14 June 1880
CourtUnited States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York

F. A Wilcox, for libellant.

B. E Valentine, for defendant.

CHOATE D.J.

This is a libel in personam to recover the cost of certain repairs upon four scows belonging to the defendant. It is objected that the court has no jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the suit. The points made against the jurisdiction are that the contract for repairing the scows is not a maritime contract; that the scows are not ships or vessels; that they are adapted to use only in port and not upon the high seas, and that if they are ships or vessels this court has no jurisdiction of a suit in personam for repairs furnished to a domestic vessel. In The General Smith, 4 Wheat. 438, it was held that a material man has no maritime lien on a domestic ship, but the court said: 'No doubt is entertained by this court that the admiralty rightfully possesses a general jurisdiction in cases of material men, and if this had been a suit in personam there would not have been any hesitation in sustaining the jurisdiction of the district court. ' Id. 433. Although this dictum was strenuously objected to by one of the justices of the same court in Ramsay v. Allegre, 12 Wheat. 611, 614, it has been repeatedly reaffirmed by the supreme court, and it can no longer be questioned, that a contract for furnishing supplies or repairs to a domestic vessel is in its nature a maritime contract, and that a suit in personam thereon is within the jurisdiction of the admiralty. The St. Lawrence, 1 Blatch. 529, and cases cited; The Lottawanna, 21 Wall. 558.

In the case last cited the court says: 'It seems to be settled in our jurisprudence that, so long as congress does not interpose to regulate the subject, the rights of material men, furnishing necessaries to a vessel in her home port, may be regulated in each state by state legislation. State laws, it is true, cannot exclude the contract for furnishing such necessaries from the domain of admiralty jurisdiction, for it is a maritime contract, and they cannot alter the limits of that jurisdiction,' etc. Id. 579-80. 'But the district courts of the United States, having jurisdiction of the contract as a maritime one, may enforce liens, given for its security, even when created by the state laws. ' Id. 580. The case of Cunningham v. Hall, 1 Cliff. 43, 47, is cited as sustaining the proposition that there is no distinction, as regards the jurisdiction between a contract for building a ship, which is held to be not maritime, and a contract for furnishing repairs to a ship already built; and it is claimed that the reasoning of this case is also adopted by the supreme court in Edwards v. Elliott, 21 Wall. 532, 554.

If these cases contain some expressions warranting such an argument it is sufficient to refer to the language of Mr Justice Clifford, who delivered the opinions in both of those cases, in the subsequent case of The Lottawanna, 21 Wall. 558, 591: 'Undisputed matters need not be discussed; consequently, it may be assumed that a contract for necessary repairs or supplies is a maritime contract, whether the vessel was at home or abroad when the repairs and supplies were made and furnished. ' Id. 591-2. He dissented from the decision of the majority of the court on the ground that the case of The General Smith was erroneously decided, and that a contract...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Atl. Specialty Ins. Co. v. Karl's Boat Shop, Inc., CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-11219-WGY
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • August 20, 2020
    ...repair of vessels already built certainly concern a maritime peril. See Kossick, 365 U.S. at 735, 81 S.Ct. 886 (citing Endner v. Greco, 3 F. 411, 412-413 (S.D.N.Y. 1880) ); Point Adams Packing Co. v. Astoria Marine Const. Co., 594 F.2d 763, 766 (9th Cir. 1979) (citing New Bedford Dry Dock C......
  • Fahey v. Gledhill
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • May 26, 1983
    ...to draw. Precedent and usage are helpful insofar as they exclude or include certain common types of contract: a contract to repair, Endner v. Greco, 3 F. 411, ... is maritime, but a contract to build a ship is not. People's Ferry Co. v. Beers, 20 How. 393 ." (Italics added.) (Kossick v. Uni......
  • Frazie v. Orleans Dredging Co
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • May 2, 1938
    ...246, 51 L.Ed. 1047; Butler v. Ellis 45 F.2d 951; 46 U.S.C. A. 971; Eastern Dredging Co., 138 F. 942; McMaster v. Dredge, 95 F. 832; Ender v. Greco, 3 F. 411; Sunbeam, 195 F. 468; Warren v. Smadbeck, 50 F.2d Rogosich v. Union Dry Dock & Repair Co., 67 F.2d 377; George Leary Const. Co. v. Mat......
  • Aluma Constr. Corp. v. P.R. Ports Auth.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico
    • July 5, 2017
    ...repair a ship fall within the umbrella of admiralty jurisdiction. See Kossick, 365 U.S. at 735, 81 S.Ct. 886 ; (citing Endner v. Greco, 3 F. 411, 412–413 (S.D.N.Y. 1880)) (holding that a contract for furnishing repairs to a ship already built is held to be maritime.) "Such contracts, for re......
  • 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