The libelant sues for wharfage of a scow platform along-side his dock walk, at One Hundred and Thirty-Eighth street, Harlem river, from November, 1886, to November, 1887. No lien under the state law can be сlaimed, as no specification of claim has been filed, and more than a year has elapsed. To admit of a maritime lien, the scow structure must be a “vessel,” within the meаning of the maritime law. I am of opinion that the structure in question, though afloat, is not such a vеssel, because it was not designed or used fоr the purpose of navigation, nor engaged in the uses of commerce, nor in the trаnsportation of persons or cargo; apd lobe a “vessel” it must meet some of these tests. The structure in question consisted оf a box, about 35 or 40 feet square, having onе or two tons of stones in the bottom to keеp it from tipping over, with a thin floor over the box about 31 feet above the water-line, on the top of which is a frame-work supporting a strong upper floor about 10 feet above, with a projecting gangway at the top. It was designed to be moored along-side a wharf, so that horses with carts could be driven over it from the wharf, with dirt or other refuse tо be dumped into boats lying along-side. This was its only use and design. The structure was mainly stationary, and rarely moved. But it was capable of being towed from one wharf to another, though not withоut some difficulty, from its clumsy structure; and but few wharves wеre adapted to its use. It had no motive power, no rudder, no sails. The case aрproaches, doubtless, that of The Hezekiah Baldwin, — a floating elevator,— which was held to be a vessel.
Ruddiman v. Scow Platform
1889 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49
U.S. Circuit Court for the Dis...1889Check TreatmentAI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.