THE IDA MEYER. 1 TAnOR
THE IDA MEYER.
May 19, 1887.)
BEAMAN'S WAGES-CANAL BOATMAN-LIEN-STEAM-BoAT.
Libelant was employed to work on claimant's canal-boats. These canalboats were propelled by claimant's steam-boat, and libelant did some slight work on her. This actIOn was brought against the steam-boat to recover for services rendered generally by the libelant. Held, that the relation between the canal-boats and the steam-boat was not such as to make the canal-boats a part of the steam-boat. and to charge the steam-boat with alien for labor per· formed on the canal-boats.
In Admiralty A. B. Stewart, for libelant. Hyland & Zabriskie, for claimants. BENEDICT, J. This is an action to enforce a lien for wages against the steam canal.boat Ida Meyer. The evidence shows that the claimant owned the steam canal·boat Ida Meyer, andalso two canal·boats. The canal-boats were employed. by the claimant in the freight business, and, when on the Erie canal, they were towed by the steam-boat, instead of being towed by horses. ;The libelant was employed to work for the claimant as a hand on the canal·boats. When the engagement was made, no reference was made to the Ida Meyer, nor did the libelant engage to perform any duty on board the Ida Meyer. The substantial parts of the although there service sued for were performed on board the is evidence that the libelant did for a short time steer the steam-boat. The services performed on board the steam-boat were, however, too insignificant to demand notice here. The decision of the case depends on the question whether the relation between the canal·boatsand the steamboat was such as to make the canal-boats a part of the steam·boat, so as to charge the steam-boat with a lien for labor performed on the canalboats. This position the libelant is forced to take because of the provision in section 4251 of the Revised Statutes, where it is enacted that "no canal-boat, registered or licensed, which is required to be registered and licensed, or enrolled and licensed, shall bl:' subject to be libeled in any of the United States courts for the wages of any person who may be employed on board thereof in navigating the same." In support of this position, reference is made to the following authorities: Amis v. The Louisa, 9 Mo. 629; Gliem v. The Belroont, 11 Mo. 112; The Kentucky v. Brooks, 1 G.Greene, 398; The Dick Keys, 1 Biss.408; and The Sydney, 27 Fed. Rep. 119. I find in none of these cases authority that will justify me in deciding that the steam-boat proceeded against is subject to lien for the wages of
Reported by Ed ward G. Benedict, EsQ.., of the New York bar.
the libelant, earned by services rendered on board the canal-boats, in pursuance of an employment to work on such boats. And on principle it seems to me that such a decision cannot be made. The canal-boats which, when on the canal, were towed by the Ida Meyer, were not appurtenant to the stearn-boat in any just sense. The steam-boat was rather appurtenant to the canal-boats; and it seems to nle easier to say that the canal-boats were navigated by the hands ofthe steam-boat. than to say that .the hands of the caIla).:boat navigated the steam-boat. The libel is dismissed, and with costs.
TH£ TH£<R£SINA. May 27, 1887.)
(DfBtrlct Oourt, Fl. D. New York.
NEGLIGENCE-WHAT AMOUNTS TO-SCUTTLE IN DECK-MISPLACED COVER.
Libelant, a stevedore, stepped on the cover of a scuttle in the deck of a ship, when the cover tilted, precipitating libelant through the scuttle into the hold, causing injury for which this suit was brought. The evidence indicated that the scuttle was ll. proper one, of a kind in common use, and that the accident was probably due to a temporary misplacement. of the cover, the cause of which did not appear. Held, that no negligence in the ship-owner was proved, and libelant could not recover. '
In Admiralty. Libel to recover damages for personal injuries, received on board the steam-ship Theresina. Wm. H. Duryea, for libelant. Owen & Gray, for claimants.
BENEDICT, J. The libelant was a stevedore at work upon the cargo of the ship in the between-decks. This deck was so constructed that a portion of it, in some places, could, as occasion required, be taken up for the purpose of reaching the lower hold just below it. That is to say, there were several scuttles left in the deck, and to these were fitted cov-. ers. These scuttles had no coamings, and the covers when in place were flush with the deck. They were without rings or hinges. They rested on stanchions, and were kept in place by being driven down tight between the permanent planks of the adjacent deck. One of these scuttles was near where the libelant was at work, and about half way between the wings and the hatch. The libelant, having occasion to move for a passing hand-truck, stepped on the cover of this scuttle. The cover tilted, and allowed him to fall through the scuttle into the hold below. The fall caused injuries for which this suit is brought against the ship.