Luft v. Steamboat Envoy
| Decision Date | 31 March 1854 |
| Citation | 19 Mo. 476 |
| Parties | LUFT, Plaintiff in Error, v. STEAMBOAT ENVOY, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. Where a suit is instituted against a boat, either before a justice or a court, it must appear from the demand filed that the same is a lien.
Action against a steamboat, commenced before a justice of the peace, and appealed to the law commissioner's court. The complaint filed with the justice, and verified by affidavit, was as follows:
“Henry Luft complains that he has a demand against the steamboat Envoy, a boat used in navigating the waters of this state, amounting to one dollar and eighty cents, which demand accrued against the said steamboat on account of the mate thereof, for services as laborer, within the thirty days next proceeding the commencement of this suit, and is, in all its particulars, as follows, to-wit:
Steambort Envoy,
To twelve hours labor, at fifteen cents per hour, $1.80; and the said Henry Luft further states that he has now no other demand against said steamboat Envoy, which is a lien thereon.”
A motion to dismiss on account of the insufficiency of the complaint was overruled, but after judgment for the plaintiff, a motion in arrest was sustained. The plaintiff sued out a writ of error.
Lewis & Henning, for plaintiff in error.
A. M. Gardner, for defendant in error.
1. The act concerning boats and vessels makes certain classes of demands liens, and authorizes proceedings against boats for their collection. The first class comprehends demands “for wages due to hands or persons employed on board the boat or vessel, for work done or services performed on board the same.”
When a suit is instituted against a boat upon a demand for labor, whether the suit be before a justice of the peace or before a court, it should appear by the demand, as filed, that the same is lien which, under the statute, is to be enforced against the boat. In the present case, the plaintiff claims a small sum for labor performed, under an employment by the mate of the boat, but it does not appear that the labor was performed on board of the boat, nor, indeed, what the character of the service was. The defendant moved to dismiss the case, because the demand was not brought within the statute authorizing proceedings against, the boat, but this motion was overruled. Afterwards, the law commissioner arrested the judgment, because of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Lolordo v. Lacy
- Lolordo v. Lacy
-
Grant v. Steamboat Maria Denning
...Indians, where there was likely to be no opportunity of getting away and no means of support at the place. The cases of Loft v. Steamboat Envoy, 19 Mo. 476, and Jones v. Steamboat Morrisett, 21 Mo. 142, are upon the point of the character of the services which come within the meaning of our......
-
Cunningham v. Steamboat Low-Water
...only liable “for work done or services rendered on board the same.” Plaintiff was paid for all the services actually rendered. (16 Mo. 266; 19 Mo. 476.) If the doctrine laid down in the instruction given be correct, the plaintiff could have recovered wages until the boat returned to St. Lou......