12 Mo. 371 | Mo. | 1849
delivered the opinion QÍ the court.
The plaintiffs in, the court below, appellants here, commenced their action in the St. Louis circuit court at the April term, 1848, agaipstthe steam boat Pride of the West, under the statute of this State concern-, ing "Boats and Vessels.”
The following is that part of the complaint which sets forth the demand in all its particulars: "On the twentieth day of December, eighteen hundred and forty-seven, a't the city of St. Louis, in said county,, the complainants at the special instance and request of, and under contract with said John H. Chambers, then master and part oviner of sai<|
“If money was loaned or advanced by the plaintiffs to the master of' the steam boat “Pride of the West” for the use of the said boat, the. application of the money by the master to the payment of an old debt,, does not affect the right of the plaintiffs.”
This instruction was refused, and the plaintiffs excepted.
The court then upon the application of the defendant’s counsel, gave-the following instructions :
2d. The captain of the steam boat “Pride of the West” had no power generally to borrow the money on the credit of the boat.
The plaintiffs objected to the giving of these instructions, and excepted to the giving of each one of them. The jury .having found a verdict for the defendants, the plaintiffs moved the court to set aside the verdict and grant them a new trial, and assigned, among others, the following reasons:
“The court erred in the instructions given to the jury.”
“The court erred in. refusing the instructions asked for o>n, behalf of the plaintiffs.”
The court refused to grant a nevv trial, and the plaintiffs appealed to this court, and now seek a reversal of the judgment below principally for the reasons above set forth in their motion for a new trial.
This case depends upon the construction which shall be given to the statute of our State concerning “Boats and Vessels.” The first section of which declares that “Every boat or vessel used in navigating the waters of this State, shallbe liable and subject to a lien in the following cases:”
First, “For all wages due to hands or persons employed on board such boat or vessel, for work done or services rendered on board the same, except for wages which may be due to the master or clerk thereof.”
Second, “For all debts contracted by the master, owner, agent, or consignee of such boat or vessel, on account of stores or supplies furnished for the use thereof,” &c., &c.
The plaintiffs demand is for so much money, cash, furnished to the master of the boat. It is not for stores or supplies, strictly speaking, but for an amount of money which the master needed and used, in order to pay a draft drawn by him in New Orleans on the boat, and payable in St. Louis. This money was furnished and used to pay a draft, which at the time was due and had been due some two or three weeks. It does not appear that any account of the transaction was kept or noticed on the books of the boat. It was simply a lending of so much money to the master of the boat, and which lie applied to pay the debts of the
In the case of tire Gen’l. Brady vs. Buckley, 6 Mo. Rep. 558, this court held that merchandize furnished to the master, in order to enable him to obtain necessaries for the boat by disposing of such merchandize, created a lien on the boat, and was within the meaning of the statute. I see not much cause to find fault with that decision. I do not feel disposed, however, to carry this doctrine of lien any further than it was carried in that case. It was said by the court in the case above cited, that money advanced to purchase supplies and stores for the boat, should be included under a liberal construction of the statute. I have no doubt of the propriety of this construction. A plaintiff may, therefore, advance money to the master or other agent of a steam boat in such a manner as to create a lien under this statute on the boat. But at the same time I hold it to be his duty, in order to come within the meaning of this statute, that whilst he is in treaty about the loan or advance of the money, he should endeavor to ascertain or to be informed of the intended purposes for which the advance or loan is sought, or of the appropriation to which the money is designed. The lender has it in his power to make his advances or loans of money a lien on the boat, and it is at his peril, should he make them under such circumstances or for such purposes as are not within the statute. He can require of the master or other agent of the boat, a declaration of the purposes for which the money is wanted, and he can expressly declare himself the causes for which he loans it; and if the loan or advance be made in order to purchase or procure stores or supplies, for the boat or vessel, a lien will attach upon such advancement of money just as much as if the debt was contracted for the stores or supplies specifically. I hold that when money has been advanced to a master or other agent of a boat for the purpose of enabling him to procure stores or supplies for his boat, that such lender is not bound to look after such master or agent, and to see how he appropriates the money thus borrowed. Whenever the contract of borrowing is complete, and the cause of such borrowing is made known at the time, and is for the purposes contemplated by the statute, then the lender has a lien, notwithstanding the master or other agent should betray the confidence or trust reposed in him, by immediately afterwards, without the consent or collusion of the lender, perverting the money acquired to any other and quite a different purpose. In order to make the lien, the money must be advanced for the purpose of procuring, obtaining, or paying for stores or supplies furnished the boat.