Hays v. Steamboat Columbus

• Decision Date: 31 March 1856
• Citation: Hays v. Steamboat Columbus, 23 Mo. 232 (Mo. 1856)
• Parties: HAYS AND OTHERS, Plaintiffs in Error, v. STEAMBOAT COLUMBUS, Defendant in Error.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

23 Mo. 232

HAYS AND OTHERS, Plaintiffs in Error,

v.STEAMBOAT COLUMBUS, Defendant in Error.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March Term, 1856.

1. One who indorses a note given by the master of a steamboat for stores and supplies furnished, and who pays the same at its maturity, does not thereby become subrogated to the rights of the one furnishing the supplies to a lien on such steamboat.

Error to St. Louis Court of Common Pleas.

The facts of this case, as set forth in the petition, are substantially as follows: John Williams & Co. furnished stores and supplies to the steamboat Columbus, for the amount of which Fulton, the master of said boat, gave his promissory note. Plaintiffs, in order to prevent the seizure of said steamboat under the act concerning boats and vessels, became indorsers upon this note, and paid it at its maturity. Plaintiffs afterwards drew their bill of exchange on said Fulton, the master, for the amount paid by them to Williams & Co., which Fulton accepted, but failed to pay at maturity. Plaintiffs seek in this action to enforce a lien against the boat for the amount so paid and furnished by them as aforesaid.

To this petition there was a demurrer, on which judgment was given for defendant. The case is brought here by writ of error.

T. T. Gantt, for plaintiff in error.

I. The claim of John Williams & Co. was a lien on the boat. The plaintiffs, if they had lent the money to the captain for the purpose of purchasing from Williams & Co. the stores and supplies which that firm furnished, would have had a lien for the money so lent. (Phelps v. Eureka, 14 Mo. 532.) But by paying Williams & Co., at the request of the captain, the amount of their claim, while it was yet a lien, and in order to prevent the seizure of the vessel, they occupied ground still more meritorious. The lien was not extinguished by the giving of the note. (Steamboat Charlotte v. Hammond, 9 Mo. 58.)

Krum & Harding, for defendant in error.

I. The lien or right of action under the statute against the boat for the supplies in question, was in favor of Williams & Co., who furnished the supplies. The lien given by statute is to the party who furnishes the supplies, and is not assignable. Were it assignable, the plaintiffs do not show themselves to be assignees.

II. The plaintiff, by paying the note given for the supplies furnished by Williams & Co., were not subrogated to the rights of the latter, so far as the lien on the boat for the supplies was concerned. This is not a case for subrogation.

LEONARD, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff, it seems, became the security of the captain for...