Mitchell v. Steamboat Magnolia
| Decision Date | 31 October 1869 |
| Citation | 45 Mo. 67 |
| Parties | ROBERT MITCHELL et al., Respondents, v. THE STEAMBOAT MAGNOLIA, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.
Sharp & Broadhead, for appellant.
Rankin & Hayden, for respondents.
The cause of action sued on, under the constitution and laws of the United States, is not within the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, but belongs purely to the State courts. (People's Ferry Co. v. Beers, 20 How. 393; Morewood v. Enequist, 23 How. 491; Roach v. Chapman, 24 How. 129; The Belfast, 7 Wall. 624, 646.)
The whole controversy in this case depends upon the jurisdiction of the State courts. The action was for materials furnished in fitting out and equipping the steamboat Magnolia, a vessel used in navigating the waters of this State, and duly enrolled at the port of St. Louis. It was a proceeding, pursuant to the statute, directly against the boat by name.
It is supposed that by the constitution and laws of the United States, and under recent decisions of the national tribunal, State courts are shorn of all power in proceedings of this nature, and on that theory the defense is based. State statutes authorizing proceeding in rem against vessels, for causes cognizable in admiralty, are statutes conferring admiralty jurisdiction, and it is conceded that they are therefore unconstitutional.
Maritime contracts, in the sense used in admiralty practice, and marine torts, in cases where a maritime lien arises, belong to the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the District Courts of the United States, and, therefore, those provisions in the statutes of this State which authorize actions in rem against vessels by name, in such cases, are not sustainable.
The question, then, arises, is the subject-matter on which this suit is founded a maritime contract, which could only be prosecuted directly against the boat in the admiralty courts of this Union? The articles were furnished and used in equipping the vessel and getting her ready to be put in service, and were a part of the necessary material for her construction. By necessary and fair import they should be classed within the designation of building material.
It is said by a learned writer that the admiralty jurisdiction, in cases of contract, depends primarily upon the nature of the contract, and is limited to contracts, claims, and services purely maritime and touching rights and duties appertaining to commercial navigation. (1 Conckl. M. L. 19.) Accordingly, it has been held...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Atlantic Works v. Tug Glide
...court. Donnell v. The Starlight, 103 Mass. 227, 230; Dock Co. v. Gibson, 22 La.Ann. 623; Williamson v. Hogan, 46 Ill. 504; Mitchell v. The Magnolia, 45 Mo. 67; Boylan v. The Victory, 40 Mo. The supreme court of the United States has given no decision upon the question. Had it done so, of co......
-
Atlantic Works v. Glide
...this court. Donnell v. The Starlight, 103 Mass. 227, 230;Dock Co. v. Gibson, 22 La.Ann. 623;Williamson v. Hogan, 46 Ill. 504;Mitchell v. The Magnolia, 45 Mo. 67;Boylan v. The Victory, 40 Mo. 244. The supreme court of the United States has given no decision upon the question. Had it done so,......
-
The Willapa
...Contra: Donnell v. The Starlight, 103 Mass. 230; Dry-Dock Co. v. Gibson, 22 La.Ann. 623; Williamson v. Hogan, 46 Ill. 504; Mitchell v. The Magnolia, 45 Mo. 67; Atlantic Works v. Tug Glide, 157 Mass. 527, 33 163. In view of the authorities, we feel bound to hold that the statute, so far as i......
-
Hunter v. St. Louis & M. V. Transp. Co.
... ... admiralty, are unconstitutional. Cavender v. Steamboat ... Barker, 40 Mo. 235; Aiken v. Steamboat ... Bismarck, 3 Mo.App. 569. As is said in the leading ... lien, and be a proceeding in rem seeking its ... enforcement. Mitchell v. Steamboat Magnolia, 45 Mo ... 67. The proceeding, under our statute, is neither the one nor ... ...