Ruddiman v. A. Scow Platform
| Decision Date | 30 March 1889 |
| Citation | 38 F. 158 |
| Parties | RUDDIMAN v. A SCOW PLATFORM. [1] |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
James R. Angel, for libelant.
Wilcox Adams & Macklin, for respondent.
The libelant sues for wharfage of a scow platform along-side his dock walk, at One Hundred and Thirty-Eighth street, Harlem river, from November, 1886 to November, 1887. No lien under the state law can be claimed as no specification of claim has been filed, and more than a year has elapsed. To admit of a maritime lien, the scow structure must be a 'vessel,' within the meaning of the maritime law. I am of opinion that the structure in question, though afloat, is not such a vessel, because it was not designed or used for the purpose of navigation, nor engaged in the uses of commerce, nor in the transportation of persons or cargo; and to be a 'vessel' it must meet some of these tests. The structure in question consisted of a box, about 35 to 40 feet square, having one or two tons of stones in the bottom to keep it from tipping over, with a thin floor over the box about 3 1/2 feet above the water-line, on the top of which is a frame-work supporting a strong upper floor about 10 feet above, with a projecting gangway at the top. It was designed to be moored along-side a wharf, so that horses with carts could be driven over it from the wharf, with dirt or other refuse to be dumped into boats lying along-side. This las its only use and design. The structure was mainly stationary, and rarely moved. But it was capable of being towed from one wharf to another, though not without some difficulty, from its clumsy structure; and but few wharves were adapted to its use. It had no motive power, no rudder, no sails. The case approaches, doubtless, that of The Hezekiah Baldwin,-- a floating elevator,-- which was held to be a vessel. 8 Ben 556. But in that case not only was the structure designed for the uses of commerce, but it was her constant business to move from place to place, as a vessel, in her peculiar work in both respects differing from the present case. This structure, though, as I have said, capable of being moved was designed to be comparatively permanent. By its nature build, design, and use, it belonged, I think, to that considerable class of cases, such as dry-docks, floating saloons, bath-houses, floating bethels, floating boat-houses, and floating bridges, all of which have been held not to be vessels within the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach
...that the mere capacity to float or move across navigable waters does not necessarily make a structure a vessel"); Ruddiman v. A Scow Platform, 38 F. 158 (S.D.N.Y.1889) (scow, though "capable of being towed ... though not without some difficulty, from its clumsy structure" just a floating bo......
-
Koernschild v. WH Streit, Inc.
...with Cope v. Vallette Dry Dock Co., 119 U.S. 625, 7 S.Ct. 336, 30 L.Ed. 501 (1887) (floating dry dock not a vessel); Ruddiman v. Scow Platform, 38 F. 158 (S.D.N.Y.1889) (floating structure moored to wharf from which refuse was loaded on to boats lying alongside not a vessel, even though cap......
-
In re Hydraulic Steam Dredge No. 1
...dry dock, or a floating bethel, hotel, or circus, or a floating warehouse in which sails or rigging might be stored. In Ruddiman v. A Scow Platform, 38 F. 158, of a libel for wharfage against a moored floating structure (with physical analogies akin to those of the structure before the cour......
-
Charles Barnes Co. v. One Dredge Boat
...is irreconcilable with the cases of The Hendrick Hudson, 3 Ben. 419, Fed. Cas. No. 6,355; The Pulaski (D.C.) 33 F. 383; Ruddiman v. A Scow Platform (D.C.) 38 F. 158; The Big Jim (D.C.) 61 F. The cases referred to are really not irreconcilable with the Pioneer Case. I will not, however, take......