12 Ohio St. 341 | Ohio | 1843
Lead Opinion
This suit is brought under the “ act providing for the collection of claims against steamboats, and other watercrafts, and authorizing proceedings against the same by name.”
The first section of this statute enacts, “ that steamboats and other watercrafts navigating the waters within, or bordering upon this state, shall be liable for debts contracted on account thereof, by the master, owner, steward, consignee or other agent, for materials, supplies or labor in the building, repairing, furnishing or equipping the same, or due for wharfage ; and, also, for damages arising out of any contract for the transportation of goods or persons, or for injuries done to person or property by such craft, pr for any damage or injury done by the captain, mate or other officer thereof, or by any person under the order or sanction of either of them, to any person who may be a passenger or hand on such steamboat or other watercraft, at the time of the infliction of such damage or injury.”
The question which arises on this record is, whether seamen’s wages are embraced, if notin words, within the reason and spirit of the act. The context, it will be seen, is broad in its terms, referring to claims in general, and defining no particular species. It has been said by this court, in the case of the Canal Boat Huron v. Simmons, 11 Ohio, 458, that it was the intention of the Legislature to substitute the watercraft, in all cases of claim, at the option of the plaintiff, where the owner or master, as such, would be liable; and that the difficulty, in many cases, of hunting up the natural, induced the adoption of the provision by which an artificial person is created, and a more easy and speedy remedy afforded. 11 Ohio, 410. That suit was prosecuted to 343] recover for ^provisions furnished for the use of the passengers and crew of the boat, and this for seamen’s wages. That case settled the question that the claim set up was legitimately within the meaning of the act; and it is equally clear to us that seamen’s wages are within it. Why should a distinction be drawn between a claim for provisions furnished? or a demand for labor in the navigation of the craft? or a debt for driving a spike or fitting a plank? We see no preference which can, with reason, be given in the one case, and not extended to the other. But it is said a construction has been given by the Supreme Court of New York, to a statute of that state, that the “supplies ” furnished must be such as enter into, and form a constituent part of the vessel, or her equipments, in order to subject her in this summary mode. 5 Wend. 510.
A careful comparison of the provisions of that statute with our own, will show the propriety of such construction there, and its impropriety here. The two statutes are by no means similar in their terms. The ■statute of Ohio is far more extensive, and shows the intention to embrace a demand for every injury : money due for wharfage, damages arising out of the breach of any contract for the transportation of goods or persons, injuries done to persons or property'by collision, or from any act of the captain, mate or other officer, etc. A bold man may assert it, but a superficial discriminator would detect the error, should it be insisted, that the statute of Ohio gives a remedy against the boat or craft, only when the demand is for something which enters Into, and forms a constituent part of the vessel.
It may be said, the construction given by this court to the act tends
It is difficult for a majority of the court to perceive how a watercraft carries notice, on its face, of a lien for supplies or *mate- [344 rials, though they enter into and form a part of the craft. All demauds against the boat may have been discharged, or they may exist, and the purchaser must inquire, or take the craft at his peril.
It-is very clear, however, that in a majority of the cases in which the act, in express terms, gives redress, by proceeding directly against the craft, the claim is not for any thing which forms a part of the boat.
We think the court of Common Pleas erred in ruling out the evidence offered, and giving judgment for the defendant; and the same is, therefore, reversed, with costs.
Judgment reversed.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting. I can not deny but that the opinion given in the case of the Canal Boat Huron v. Simmons, 11 Ohio, 458, is broad enough to embrace this ease, and to sustain the reversal of the judgment of the court of Common Pleas. But I do not regard that decision as definitely settling the law, because the same question had been twice differently ruled upon the circuit, by Judge Wood and myself; and the case in 11 Ohio, was, in fact, determined by three judges, (in consequence of my having been counsel for one of the parties,) and one of the three dissented. So far, then, as the question depends upon the opinions of this court, it remains, as I conceive, unsettled, the authority being equally balanced.
I shall therefore examine the law of the ease with perfect freedom, and endeavor to show that the Court of Common Pleas did not err. 'The facts are these : The schooner Cleveland was attached to recover the wages of a mariner employed to navigate her. The proceeding is one wholly unknown to the common law, and can not be sustained, unless it be provided for in the act of 1840. Swan’s Stat. 209. The question to be settled, is, does that statute give this remedy ? Before attempting to answer this inquiry, it may be well to recur to first principles, and see what rules of construction should be applied to an act of this nature. The part of the act'relied upon reads thus:
Let us see if the supposition, that a debt, contracted for mariner’s wages is a debt “ for labor in furnishing or equipping ” a vessel, will-stand the test of an examination. In the first place the labor of a common seaman is no part of a vessel’s furniture — no part of its equipage; nor is it labor expended in procuring the one or the other. Still, it must be held to be one or both, otherwise the judgment of the court of Common Pleas is not erroneous. It is said, in the opinion,, in 11 Ohio, that to limit the remedy given against the boat, to such supplies or materials, employed in building, repairing, furnishing or equipping the same, as become a part of her, and not embracing such as are daily consumed and replaced, would be too narrow a Construction to meet the intention of the Legislature. Could we travel without the statute for the purpose of gathering the intention of the Legislature, it could be proved to the satisfaction of any jury, that it was the express intent of the very committee that reported the bill, to give the remedy the precise limitation which that opinion holds to be too narrow. I am authorized by a member of the Judiciary Committee, a lawyer of talents and experience, to state, that the point was discussed when the bill was under consideration, and that it could not have be-34,6] come a law, had the Judiciary Committee ^supposed it susceptible of the interpretation it received in the 11 Ohio. I am much mistaken if it received in that case a correct construction.
“ Shall be liable for debts contracted on account thereof,” means on account of the craft; and the debt must not only be contracted on account of the craft, but must be a debt for supplies, materials or labor in the building, repairing, furnishing or equipping the craft-
The statute of New York, of August 10, 1798, (vol. 1, R. Laws of 1813, p. 130,) provides for proceedings in rem the same as does our statute. It declares “ that ships or vessels of all descriptions, etc., shall be liable for all debts contracted by the master or commander, owner or consignee thereof, on account of any work done, or any supplies or materials furnished by any mechanic or tradesman, or others, on account or towards the building, repairing, fitting, furnishing or equipping such ships or veesels.” In commenting upon this statute, 11 Ohio, 461, it is said the word “ supplies” is not in the statute of New York, and that it was to be presumed that the Legislature were 348] aware of the construction put upon the New York statute, *in Johnson v. Steamboat Sandusky, 5 Wend. 510, and inserted the words, “ stewards” and “ supplies,” to avoid it. I readily admit the presumption of knowledge on the part of the Legislature, both of the New York statute, and the case in 5 Wendell; but I can, by no means, admit that they undertook to avoid that construction in the way supposed, Because it is perfectly fair to presume, that they also knew how New York had effected that object; for they could not have looked into the New York statutes without meeting with the Revised Code of 1829, and, on page 493, of vol. 2, they would have found the revised statute read thus — “ Whenever a debt, amounting to fifty dollars or upwards, shall be contracted by the master, owner, agent or consignee ■of any ship or vessel within this state, for either of the followihg purposes — 1st: On account of any work done, or materials or articles furnished in this State, for or towards the building, repairing, fitting, furnishing or equipping such ship or vessel; 2d: For such provisions and stores, furnished within this state, as may be fit and proper for the use of such vessel, at the time when the same were furnisned ; 3d : -On account of wharfage, and the expenses of keeping such a vessel in port, including the expense incurred in employing persons to watch her ; such debt shall be a lien upon such ship or vessel, her tackel,
The New York statute of 1798 contains, in fact, every word of our own, from which any legal, inference can be drawn capable of throwing light upon the class of claims for which the watercraft may be-proceeded against by name, and the word “ fitting” is superadded. The words, “ steward” or “ agent,” as used in our statute, do not alter the class of claims recoverable in this mode at all, and were never used by the Legislature for that purpose. There is, then, no reason to suppose that it was intended to employ the terms, “ furnishing” and “ equipping,” *in a new sense, so as to make them mean one thing [349 in New, York, and another in Ohio.
The case of Johnson v. The Sandusky was brought to recover an account for wood furnished as fuel, and the court said, (p. 512,) “ It would hardly be contended that the butcher or baker or grocer who supplied a steamboat would have a lien under this act (the act of 1798.) The supplies contemplated by the act, it appears to me, must-be such as enter into the construction or equipment of a vessel, and. become a part of her, and not such as are daily consumed and constantly replaced. They must be such as go toward the building, repairing, fitting, furnishing and equipping a vessel.” Cook v. Slack, 21 Wend. 177 ; Hubbel v. Dennison, Ibid. 181.
But it was said that the New York statute is nothing but a lien law, while our statute treats the boat as a person, and makes it responsible in its own name ; that it is equitable in its object, “ and will receive a liberal construction, to carry the design of its enactment into effect.”
I would, out of respect to my brethren, pass over this passage, were it not likely to prejudice, most seriously, great and important interests - of our people. Ohio is bounded upon the north and the south by navigable waters, and is not excelled by any state in the facilities of internal navigation. Watercraft of various kinds, to the amount of several thousands per annum, are engaged in her carrying trade. Many of them are owned by one person or company, and hired and navigated by others, touching and trading at the various places which border upon the lake, the rivers, or the canals. It is a great hardship to the owner, so hiring out his boat or vessel, to have it attached years afterwards, perhaps at a distant port, and taken from him to satisfy as