REPORTER, vol. 8'1.,
FREEMAN 11.' THE UNDAUNTED.
(Circuit OQ'Uf't, No. D. Oalifornia.
February 15, 1889.)
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-INTERSTATE COMMERCE-,-PILOTS-HALF PILOTAGE.
Pol. Code Cal. § 2466, imposes half pilotage on vessels when a pilot is de· clined, but section 2468 exempts" from all charges for pilotage, unless a pilot be actually em ployed. all vessels coasting between S,an 'rancisc, 0 and any port , in OrelfoIh or in Washington or Alaska territories. and all vessels coasting between t)le ports of this Rev. St. p. S. § 4287, provides that "no regulations or provisions shall be adopted by any state which shall make any discrimination in the rate of pilotage or half pilotage, between vessels sailing between the portlj of and vessels sailing between the ports of difIerentlltates." Held; that the California statute is void for unlawful discrimination, and half pilotage cannot be collected under it.
In Admiralty. Appeal from district court. Libel by E. M. Freeman against the ship Undaunted, for half pilotage. The district court dismissed the libel and libelant appeals. P. G. Wigginton,for appellant. Milton Andros, for appellee. Before SAWYER, Circuit Judge.
SAWYER, J. This is a suit for half pilotagE', the captain of the Un·' daunted,aregistered American vessel, having refused to employ a pilot when leaving the port of San Francisco, for the port of New York. The only question iS,whether the statute of California allowing half pilotaj:te, is not in conflict with the statute of the United States upon the subject, and therefore,void. Under section 2466 of the Political: Code'of California, vessel$ of her class are required to pay "five dollars per foot draft, and four 'cents per ton for, each and every ton registered measurement," and half pilotage when a pilot is declined. But section 2468 "exempts fromal1chal'ges for pilotage, unless a pilot be actually employed, all vessels coasting between' San' Francisco and any port in· Oregon. or in Washington, or Alaska territories, and all vessels coasting the ports of this state." thereby excepting them from the tion of the general provision of section 2466. Thus by the exprEll:ls pro. visions of the state statute, a discrimination is made between" vessels cORstingbetwet:n San Francisco and any port of Oregon, or ton, or Alaska territories, and all vessels coasting between the ports of this state," and "vessels.sailing between the ports:"of California and any' of the other states of the Union-the discrimination being against all the last-named vessels, the latter being required to pay half pilotage when depline.thei services. OCapilot, while the wholly exempt froillhliJf pilotage th'e same Clrcumstailces and conditions. But, section 4237 of the Revised Statutes of the United States proddes that "no regulations or provisions shall be adopted by any state which shall make any discrimination in the rate of or half pilotage, between vessels sailing between the ports of one state, and vessels sailing between the ports of different states * * * and all existing regulations, or
proviaions making any such discrimination are annuledand abrogated." Thus this. express provision of the stat,ute, renders void the statute of It isclaim4;1Q, however, that lj.S this vessel sails around California Cape Horn to New York,and may touch at some foreign port on the way, between. the two ports of San Francisco and New .it is. York. if this be sO,the provision of the Revised $tatutescited, does not· say "coasting,"but "vessels sailing" between the ports of the states. This vessel is, clearly, within the terms of the provision. TQe and ,under the clause oithe national constitution authorizing congress to regulate commerce between the !ltates. The,caseo! v. Thompson, 118 U. S. 90, 6 Sup. Ct. ,Rep. 988, is in point, and covers this case. The ship Undaunted, therefore, is not courtw1;1st bealliable for half pilotage, and the decree of. ,the firmed and the libel dismissed,and it is so ordered.
Mi88ouri, E. D.
AD'vE:RsE'POSSESIUON-AcTWN ,FOR WIFE'S LAND DURING COVERTURE.
It iii the law in Missouri thai the adverse poi3sesslon for the statutory t'erlod which will defeat the husband's sole right of possession of his wife'8 llmd wilI likewise defeat an, action of ejectment therefor brought by the hU8band and wife jointly.
At Law. EjMtmentby Emily Deguire and Paul W,;'Deguireagainst the St. Joseph Lead Company. , On motion to strikeout part of reply. , ReynoldlJ« Relje,lltndBamuel L. Isbell, for plaintiffs. ' Oa·rter « Weber Charla Nagel, for defendant.
, BREwER, J ..' This is an a:ction of ejectment. The plaintiffs are husband and wife. Their title, as alleged, is by deed tothe wifefrom her father, on March 7, 1848, she being then unmarried. For one defense tl1e. 24 years of limitation. .,As a reply to that defense the plaintiffs allege that they were married in October, 1848, and that ever since that date, and at the date when her right ofactionaccrued, she has been, and is nmv, a married woman, the wife of the other plaintiff, and underthediaability'ofcovertnre. This part of the reply defendant moves to strikeout, and thljl,t motion p'r,esents the questiori. under cqnsideration. In the case of Vallev. 'Obenhause,.62 Mo. 81, the supreme court held in a case like this that seisin of husband and wife was joint,and therefore her aswelI-as his right of action was barred by the 24 years'statute. In Dyer V. Wittler, 89 Mo.'81, the doctrili.e oHhe' former case was overruled,and'it was held that during covertureihe had no right of . of limitation was not running against entry, and, tijererore .herj .t,hat tlle.huspandl;lall. tifEl ,exclusive right. pfpoasession or'