The Flint River Steamboat Co. v. Foster
Decision Date | 31 July 1848 |
Docket Number | No. 23.,23. |
Citation | 5 Ga. 194 |
Parties | The Flint River Steamboat Company, plaintiff in error. vs. Nelson P. Foster, defendant. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Summary process against the Flint River Steamboat Company, decided by Judge Warren, in Decatur Superior Court, June Term, 1848.
The facts are sufficiently incorporated in the opinion of the Court.
Sneed, Sullivan & Dudley, and Crawford, for plaintiff in error, submitted the following points and authorities:
1st. The Act giving the lien is in violation of the fifth article of the amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which declares that a man shall not be deprived of his property without due process of law. Amendments Constitution U. 8. Art. 5. 6 Mass. 309. 4 Dallas, 233. 4 Mass. 027. 1 Brock. 388. 3 John. 475. 15 John, 537. Story on Constitution, 661.
2d. The Act is in violation of seventh article of Amendments Constitution U. S. because it restricts the right of trial by jury. Amendments Constitution V. S. Art. 7. 4 Wheaton, 243. 4 Harris & McHenry, 465. 2 Murphy, 44, 45.
3d. The Act also violates the Constitution of the State of Georgia, which secures the right of trial by jury. Constitution State of Georgia, art. 4, sect. 5, Cobb, 729.
Platt & Spicer, and J. Law, for defendant, submitted:
The words "trial by jury, as heretofore used in this State, shall remain inviolate, " means trial by jury at Common Law.
In the Constitution of the United States, the Common Law is expressed in words.
In admiralty, trial by jury is not secured. 3 Story on Constitution, page 645.
The Act of Congress of 1789, ch. 20, cotemporaneous with the amendment of the federal Constitution, and intends to carry out the clause of the Constitution united under the amendment, does not extend the right of trial by jury to admiralty and maratime jurisdiction. 3 Story's Commentaries on the Constitution, 646. And therefore, in maratime jurisdiction, cannot be amended as of constitutional right.
In maratime questions the local law of a State as to liens, will be enforced in admiralty. 3 Peters' Digest, page 19, cose 24. 3 Peters' Digest, page 23, case 78.
The Statute creating the lien upon steamboats and other water craft, navigating certain rivers, is in the nature of a maratime statute, and will receive a far more liberal construction than statutes relating to Common Law rights and Common Law rern-edies. First, the Statute, see Pamphlet 1841, page 167. For its extension, see Pamphlet 1845, page 152.
The Statute, however, secures all the rights of trial by jury, known to the judiciary of 1799, or any or all the amendments thereto, and therefore is constitutional. Hmrick vs. Harris, 1 Binney, 416. Kiddy vs. Moore, 2 Murphy, 41. Wilson vs. Simonton, 2 Hawks, 482. Livingston vs. Mayor N. Y. 8 Wendall, 100. Craig vs. Maltbey, 1 Kelly, 546. Reid vs. Sullivan, 1 Kelly, 294.
Courts will not so construct the Constitution as to make it an incumbrance to commerce, but they will sustain all laws not clearly unconstitutional. 1 Peters' Digest, page 559, case 11.
By the Court.—Lumpkin, J. delivering the opinion.
Tie General Assembly of this State, on the 11th day of December. 1841, passed an Act "to give to all persons employed in steamboats and other water-craft on the Chattahoochee, Altamaha, and Ocmulgee rivers, a lien on said steamboats or water-craft, for his, her, or their wages, and for wood and provisions furnished, and to point out and facilitate the mode of the collection of the same. (Pamphlet Laws of 1841, p. 167.) Section 1 declares "that from, and immediately after the passage of said act, all persons employed either as captain, pilot, engineer, first or second mate, fireman, deck-hand, or in any other capacity whatever, on all steamboats and other water craft engaged in the navigation of the Chattahoochee, Altamaha, and Ocmulgee rivers, for any debt, dues, wages, or demands, that he, she, or they may and shall have against the owner or owners of said steamboat or other water craft, for personal services, done, rendered, or performed on board the same, and for wood and provisions, an exclusive lien on said steamboat or other water-craft, against the owner or owners thereof, superior in dignity to, and of higher claim than all other incumbrances, no matter of what nature or sort the same may be, provided he. she, or they shall demand and present the collection of the same, as hereinafter to be provided for, at any time within twelve months after the same shalt become due and payable."
Sec. 4. "And be it further enacted, That all the provisions of this act shall apply to all steamboats and water-craft navigating the Altamaha and Ocmulgee rivers, and that all persons who furnish wood and provision to said steamboats or other water-craft, shall have the same remedies as herein before provided."Ib. p. 8, 167, 168, 169.
In 1845, the Legislature passed the following act to extend the provisions of the Act of 1841, and to include Flint river therein: " Be it enacted, &c. That all the provisions of the above recited Act be, and the same are hereby extended to all persons employed on steamboats and other water-craft on Flint river. And whereas it frequently happens that persons employed on said steamboats and other water-crafts on said Chattahoochee, Ocmulgee, Altamaha, and Flint rivers, are negroes and free persons of color, be it therefore further enacted, that whenever any negro, being a slave or free person of color, shall be employed as pilot, engineer, first or second mate, fireman, deck-hand, or in anyother capacity whatever, on all steamboats and other water-crafts engaged in the navigation of said rivers, to wit, the Chattahoochee, Altamaha, Ocmulgee, and Flint rivers, that then, and in all such casts, the owner, master, agent, attorney in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mabee v. McDonald
...P. D. 1489.)" All of the foregoing statutory provisions should be considered together, upon the issue before us. Flint River Steamboat Co. v. Foster, 5 Ga. 194, 48 Am. Dec. 248; Corliss v. Corliss, 8 Vt. 373. See, also, dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Hunt in Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 73......
-
State v. Brown
...cases. New forums may be erected, and new remedies provided, accommodated to the ever shifting state of society." Flint River Steamboat Co. v. Foster, 5 Ga. 194, 207-208 (1848).... "[T]here is no state constitutional right to a jury trial with respect to proceedings of statutory origin unkn......
-
Franklin v. Harper
... ... O'Neill v ... Trask, 135 Wis. 333, 115 N.W. 823; Capen v ... Foster, 12 Pick. 485, 29 Mass. 485, 23 Am.Dec. 632. See ... annotation in 91 ... to nullify a statute merely because it appears to be absurd ... Flint River Steamboat Co. v. Foster, 5 Ga. 194(2), ... 48 Am.Dec. 248. Nor do ... ...
-
Fullwood v. Sivley
...the Courts to interpret its mandates, and their duty to obey them, however absurd and unreasonable they may appear." Flint River Steamboat Co. v. Foster, 5 Ga. 194(2) (1848). Moreover, under any other interpretation of OCGA § 9-14-52(b), Fullwood would be entitled to a decision on the merit......
-
Medical Malpractice as Workers' Comp: Overcoming State Constitutional Barriers to Tort Reform
...v. Nestlehutt, 691 S.E.2d 218, 221 (Ga. 2010), Swails v. State, 431 S.E.2d 101, 102-03 (Ga. 1993), Flint River Steamboat Co. v. Foster, 5 Ga. 194, 207-08 (1848), and Tift v. Griffin, 5 Ga. 185, 189 (1848) (all using 1798), with Strange v. Strange, 148 S.E.2d 494, 495-96 (Ga. 1966) (using 17......
-
The Party Respectfully Requests a Jury Trial on All Issues So Triable: What Issues Are Triable to a Jury and What Issues Should Be Triable to a Jury? a Comment on the Right to a Jury Trial, With a Focus on Civil Trials, and When the Right Exists
...Ins. Co., 228 U.S. 364, 377-78 (1935). 24. See Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9, 27—28 (1913).25. Flint River Steamboat Co. v. Foster, 5 Ga. 194, 206 (1848).26. Ellis v. Stanford, 256 Ga. App. 294, 297, 568 S.E.2d 157, 160 (2002). See Williams v. Overstreet, 230 Ga. 112, 115, 195 S.E.2d 9......
-
Democratic Renewal and the Civil Jury
...Policy: Perceived Problems and Proposed Solutions, 6 Psych. Pub. Pol'y & L. 788, 789 (2000).242. Flint River Steamboat Co. v. Foster, 5 Ga. 194, 206 (1848).243. Id. at 207.244. See Stanley E. Sacks, Preservation of the Civil Jury System, 22 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 76, 79 (1965) (outlining the h......
-
Reviving Elusive Rights: State Constitutional Unenumerated Rights Clauses as Bounded Guarantors of Fundamental Liberties
...Georgia law, except to the extent they were displaced by Georgia’s own constitutional or 252. Flint River Steamboat Co. v. Foster, 5 Ga. 194, 215–16 (1848). 253. 282 S.E.2d 896, 897 (1981). The court in Robeson maintained the common law rule established by a previous case, Carmichael v. Car......