BRYAN ROACH AND DENNIS LONG, COMPOSING THE FIRM OF ROACH & LONG, LIBELLANTS AND APPELLANTS,
v.
WILLIAM CHAPMAN AND OTHERS, CLAIMANTS OF THE STEAMER CAPITOL, AND DANIEL EDWARDS AND JOSEPH MAILLOT, SURETIES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Roach & Long sought a maritime lien on the steamboat Capitol for machinery and engines supplied during the vessel's construction at Louisville, Kentucky, but the Supreme Court affirmed the Circuit Court's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that contracts for building ships or supplying materials for construction are not maritime contracts within federal admiralty jurisdiction, regardless of any lien created under state law.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice GRIER delivered the opinion of the court.
The libellants claim to have a lien on the steamboat Capitol, for a balance due them for machinery furnished in her construction. The boat was built at Louisville, Kentucky, and the libellants furnished the boilers and engines. Payments were made as the work progressed, and bills of exchange taken for. the balance due after the vessel was completed. These were not paid. The boat left the port and the State, and was afterwards sold, and became the property of the claimants.
Among'other things, the claimants pleaded to the juris iliction of the court. This plea was sustained by the Circuit Court.
. A contract for building a ship or supplying engines, timber, or other jnaterials for her construction, is clearly not a maritime contract.
Any former dicta or decisions which seemed to favor a contrary doctrine were overruled by this court, in the case of the People’s Ferry Co. v. Beers, (20 How., 400.)
It is said here, that the law of Kentucky creates a lien in favor of the libellants; and that, as this case originated before the adoption of our rule, which took effect on the first of May, 1859, it may, upon the principles recognised by this court in Peyroux v. Howard, (7 Peters, 343,) be enforced in the admiralty. But (to quote' the language of the court in Orleans v. Phoebus, 11 How., 184) “that decision does not authorize any such conclusion. In that case, the repairs of the vessel, for which the State laws created a lien, were made at New Orleans, on tide waters. The contract was treated as a maritime contract, and the lien under the State laws was enforced-in admiralty, upon the ground that the court, under such circumstances, had jurisdiction of the contract, as maritime; and then the lien, being attached to it, might be enforced according to the mode of administering remedies in the admiralty. The local laws can never confer jurisdiction on the courts of the United States.”
It is clear, therefore, that the judgment of,the Circuit Court, dismissing the libel for want of jurisdiction, must be affirmed, without noticing other questions raised by the pleadings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
THE Pers. Injury Clinic, Inc. v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)
-
N. Pac. S.S. Co. v. Hall Bros. Marine Ry. & Shipbuilding Co., 249 U.S. 119 (U.S. 1919)…nna, 21 Wall. 558, 579, 581. See The Glide, 167 U. S. 606. It is settled that a contract for building a ship or supply [*127] ing materials for her construction is not a maritime contract. People’s Ferry Co. v. Beers, 20 How. 393; Roach v. Chapman, 22 How. 129; Edwards v. Elliott, 21 Wall. 532, 553, 557; The Winnebago, 205 U. S. 354, 363, In the case in 20 Howard the court said (p. 402): “So far from the contract being purely maritime, and touching rights and duties appertaining to navigation (on the ocea…
-
The Robert W. Parsons, 191 U.S. 17 (U.S. 1903)…y grant liens, but may provide remedies for .their enforcement. Contracts for the building of a ship are the most prominent examples of such as are not maritime in their character, and hence within this rule. The Jefferson, 20 How. 393; The Capitol, 22 How. 129; Edwards v. Elliott, 21 Wall. 532; Johnson v. Chicago &c. Elevator. Co., 119 U. S. 388; Sheppard v. Steele, 43 N. Y. 52. It remains to consider whether the contract in this case, which was for repairs furnished to a canalboat in a port of the State…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence