John Martin v. West

• Decision Date: 04 December 1911
• Docket Number: No. 33,33
• Citation: 32 S.Ct. 42,56 L.Ed. 159,222 U.S. 191
• Parties: JOHN I. MARTIN et al., Plffs. in Err., v. A. J. WEST
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

222 U.S. 191

32 S.Ct. 42

56 L.Ed. 159

JOHN I. MARTIN et al., Plffs. in Err.,

v A. J. WEST.

No. 33.

Argued and submitted November 2, 1911.

Decided December 4, 1911.

Messrs. John Trumbull, Aldis B. Browne, Alexander Britton, and Evans Browne for plaintiffs in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 192-194 intentionally omitted] Mr. W. C. Keegin for defendant in error.

[Argument of Counsel from page 194 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Van Devanter delivered the opinion of the court:

This case arose out of the collision, on May, 7, 1906, of the steamer Norwood, owned and enrolled at San Francisco, with a supporting pier of a toll drawbridge between Aberdeen and South Aberdeen, in Chehalis county, Washington, over the Chehalis river, a navigable stream flowing into an arm of the Pacific ocean. The pier stood upon the bed of the river, in navigable water, and the bridge was maintained and used as a connection between highways on either side of the stream, and not as an aid to navigation. The vessel was engaged in interstate commerce, was proceeding under her own motive power, and so struck the pier as to do serious injury to it, and to cause one span of the bridge to collapse and fall into the river within a few hours thereafter. The cause of the collision was the negligent management of the vessel by her master and owners.

In a suit brought in the superior court of Chehalis county, by the owner of the bridge, against the master and owners of the vessel, the former asserted and sought to enforce, under a statute of the state (Ballinger's Anno. Codes & Statutes, §§ 5953, 5954), a lien against the vessel for his damages so sustained; caused the vessel to be seized and detained by a temporary receiver, until released by the substitution of a bond by the master and owners in place of the vessel; and recovered a judgment, assessing his damages at $13,751.89, and establishing the lien so asserted. The judgment was affirmed by the supreme court of the state (51 Wash. 85, 21 L.R.A. (N.S.) 324, 97 Pac. 1102), and its decision is now called in question upon various grounds, which, in view of our prior decisions, require but brief notice.

The pertinent portions of the state statute are as follows:

'Sec. 5953. All steamers, vessels, and boats, their tackle, apparel, and furniture, are liable,——

* * * * *

'6. For injuries committed by them to persons or property within this state, or while transporting such persons or property to or from this state.

'Demands for these several causes constitute liens upon all steamers, vessels, and boats, and their tackle, apparel, and furniture, and have priority in their order herein enumerated, and have preference over all other demands; but such liens only continue in force for the period of three years from the time the cause of action accrued.

'Sec. 5954. Such liens may be enforced, in all cases of maritime contracts or service, by a suit in admiralty, in rem, and the law regulating proceedings in admiralty shall govern in all such suits; and in all cases of contracts or service not maritime, by a civil action in any district court of this territory.'

1. It is objected that the statute does not include injuries to a fixed structure like a bridge, but only to persons or property while being transported, or, at most, to movable property susceptible of being transported; and does not include a foreign vessel, such as the Norwood, but only domestic vessels. But of this it is enough to say, the supreme court of the state has construed the statute otherwise, and the case is on in which we accept that construction. The Winnebago (Iroquois Transp. Co. v. De Laney Forge & Iron Co.) 205 U. S. 354, 51 L. ed. 836, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 509; Smiley v. Kansas, 196 U. S. 447, 49 L. ed. 546, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 289; Gatewood v. North Carolina, 203 U. S. 531, 51 L. ed. 305, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 167.

2. It next is insisted that the injury on account of which the lien was asserted was a maritime tort, and therefore the cause of action was within the exclusive admiralty jurisdiction of the courts of the United States; the argument being that, as the collapsing span of the bridge fell into the river, it was there that the substance and consummation of the wrong took place.

It may be that the damage ensuing from the collision was aggravated by the fact that the span fell into the stream and was subjected to the force of the current, and submerged in the water; but, if that be so, it furnishes no criterion for determining whether...