The Brig & City of Erie v. Canfield
| Decision Date | 22 July 1873 |
| Parties | The Brig "City of Erie" v. John Canfield and another |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Heard January 14, 1873
Certiorari to Manistee Circuit.
Proceedings affirmed, with costs.
S. W Fowler, for plaintiff in certiorari.
Ramsdell & Benedict, for defendants in certiorari.
This case is brought into the court by certiorari to the circuit court for the county of Manistee.
In the court below the defendants in error were complainants, and proceeded against the brig under the act to provide for the collection of demands against water craft, approved February 5th, 1864.--Laws 1864, p. 107; Comp. L. 1871, p. 1861. The demand set forth in their complaint was that the brig, on the 5th day of June, 1868, "while navigating the waters of the State of Michigan, at the port of Manistee, in the county of Manistee aforesaid, in the employment and business of commerce and navigation between the port of Manistee and the port of Chicago, in the State of Illinois, upon the lakes and navigable waters connecting said lakes, by reason of the misconduct and negligence of the master and employees of said brig, and by reason of lack of skill, care and attention in the management of said brig by said master and employees, and by reason of the insufficiency and unseaworthiness of the rudder of said brig, was deflected and turned from its due and proper course, into and against the boom, and into and against the saw-logs of complainants, whereby said boom was broken, and said saw-logs were released, scattered, damaged and lost, to the number of about six hundred logs." The case was contested on both the law and the facts, in the circuit court, but the claim was sustained, and a judgment rendered in favor of complainant for six hundred and eighty-four dollars.
In this court the cause was argued on jurisdictional questions only. It is claimed that the cause was within the admiralty jurisdiction of the federal courts, and, consequently, that no State court could have or be vested with jurisdiction of the same. Also that the case was not within the act above referred to, which only authorizes proceedings against water craft "used or intended to be used in navigating the waters of this State;" whereas, the vessel in question was navigating the waters of both Michigan and Illinois. And further, that the evidence shows that the boom in question extended into, and embraced a considerable portion of the navigable part of the Manistee river at the point where the injury occurred, and was placed there by complainants without authority of law, and constituted a public nuisance, and an injury to, or destruction of it could give no claim to compensation.
The fact that the brig was upon a voyage from a port outside the State seems to me unimportant, except as it may bear upon the question of admiralty jurisdiction. The act referred to was unquestionably intended to give a remedy in all cases coming within its provisions in other particulars, where the vessel at the time was navigating the waters of the State, and where no remedy could be had in admiralty. The act is not confined to water craft used or intended to be used exclusively in navigating the waters of this State, and the brig in question was in this particular strictly within the terms of the act, and if there is no admiralty jurisdiction, is within the reason for its enactment, notwithstanding a part of its voyage was upon the waters of another...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Winnebago
...require. The construction of the provision of the statute in this regard was presented to the Supreme Court of the state in The City of Erie v. Canfield, 27 Mich. 479, and was decided adversely to the contention which counsel plaintiff in error now makes; the court holding that the vessel n......
-
THE KOYU MARU
...Ludw. Mowinckel, cause No. 4346, U. S. Dist. Ct., Wash., S. D. (no written opinion); The Baron Jedburgh (D. C.) 299 F. 960; City of Erie v. Canfield, 27 Mich. 479; Lermond's Case, 122 Me. 319, 119 A. 864; The Mackinaw (D. C.) 165 F. 351; The Sumanco (D. C.) 4 F. (2d) 617, 1925 A. M. C. 553;......
-
The Curtis
...37 F. 705 CITY OF MILWAUKEE v. THE CURTIS, THE CAMDEN, AND THE WELCOME. United States ... boom of logs, anchored or fastened to the shore: City of ... Erie v. Canfield, 27 Mich. 479. The latter is perhaps an ... extreme case, and ... ...
-
Lindsay Phelps Company v. John Mullen
...booming logs on the waters of streams running through the forests of the west is a lawful business cannot be doubted. In The City of Erie v. Canfield, 27 Mich. 479, 482, the supreme court of Michigan 'It is clear that on a river like the Manistee, which is navigable by steamers for a long d......