FEDERAL REPORTER, vol. 39. DOOLITTLE KNOBEl.OCH et al.
(District Court, D. South Oarolina. June 14, 1889.)
A ciaim against owner of a vessel for services in pnrcbasin,g her. and in traveling on bel', looking aftertbe owner's interests, but bavingnll control over or concern in the navigation of tbe vessel, and for advances to the master and vessel as the owner's agent, is not within the jurisdiction of admiralty
In Admiralty. Lihel for services and advances by Alvin Doolittle agoainst William Knobeloch, owner of steamer Bellevue, and the steamer Bellevue. Trenholm & Rhett, for libelant. W. J. Gayer and Mitchell & Smith, for respondent. SIMONTON, J. The libel sets up a claim against the steamE'r in rem and bel' owner, the respondent, in personam, for services and ad\'ances. The services were going to New York as the agent of Knobeloch, and purchasing for him the steamer Bellevue, and coming in her on hcr voyage from New York to Cbarleston, looking generally after the interests of the owner; not, however, having any control or concern in the navigation of tl1e vessel. The advances consist of cash to the master from time to time, and moneys paid tor supplies 10 the steamer, pilotage, and dock fees. The libel was amended by striking out all claim in rem on the steamer. Respoudmt excepts to the jurisdiction of the court. The jurisdiction in admiralty depends primarily upon the nature of the contract, and is limited to contracts, claims, amI services purely maritime, and touching rights and duties appertaining to commerce and ·navigation. The Jefferson, 20 How. 393. It is not easy to get an exact definition of the term "maritime contract." It is lar easier to say what is not a maritime contract. "The true criterion," says that eminent jurist, Mr. Justice BRADLEY, "is the nature and subject-matter of the contract, as whether it hilS refl:'rence to maritime services or maritime transactions." Insurance Co. v. Dunham, 11 Wall. 1. Mr. Browne, in his work on Civil and Admiralty Law, (vohme 2, page 82,) asks the question: "What contracts should be cognizable in adlllimlty?" and answers it: "All contracts which relate purely to maritime afi'airs." "Maritime contracts are such as relate to commerce and navigation," says Justice CLIFFORD. 'The Orpheus, 2 Cliff. 29. The English courts limit courts of admiralty by the locality of the contract. Our courts look to the subjeet-matter. De Lovw v. Bait, 2 Gall. 3U8. But "to be a maritime contract, * * 'I' it is not enough that the subject-matter of it, the consideration, the service, is to be done on the flea. It must be in its nature maritime. It must relate to maritime afhlirs. It must have a connection with the nnviga,.. tion of the ship, with her equipment or preservation, or with the mamtenance or preservation of the crew, who are necessary to the navigation and safety of the ship. Thus a carpenter, a surgeon, a steward, though
BOVARD tI. THE MAYFLOWER.
not strictly mariners or seamen, may all sue for their wages in the admiralty because they contribute in their several ways to the preservation and support, of the vessel and her crew." The Farmer, Gilp. 53!. The charge for services in the steamer cannot be in this court. It does not spring from a maritime contract. A shipbroker cannot sue in admiralty for services in procuring a charter-party, as they do not arise out of a maritime contract. The Thames, 10 Feri. Rep. 848. Nor do the services of an agent in soliciting freight come within this category. The Crystal Stream, 25 Fed. Rep. 575. Nor is a contract for building a ship, (Cunningham v. Hall, 1 Cliff. 43,) nor for furnishing materials for building a ship, (The Orpheus, 2 Cliff. 29,) a maritime contract. The underlying principle is this: All these are preliminary services leading to a maritime contract. They do not constitute in themselves a maritime contract. Of the same character is the purchase of a vessel. See Edwards v. Elliott, 21 Wall ..532. The service in the purchase of the steamer in this case was not a maritime contract. The claim tor advances made to the master and steamer do not come within our jurisdiction. "Admiralty has no jurisdiction over an account between the agent of a steam-boat and its owners for moneys paid for its use." Minturn v. Maynard, 17 How. 477; White v. Dollars, 19 Fed. Rep. 848; Hen. Adm. p. 135, § 47; Bank v. The Charles E. Page, (MS. Cir. Ct. South Carolina, Dec. 1886.) The same conclusion must be reached with rpgard to the claim for servi es in coming on the steamer from New York. Hewas not master, pilot, otlicer, engineer, fireman, or one of the crew. He only stood tor the owner,-a privileged passenger. His service was not in its nature maritime, did not relate to maritime affairs, had no connection with the navigation of the steamer, nor with her equipment or preservation or with the maintenance or preservation of thE' crew. The libel is digmissed for want of jurisdiction. No decree can be made as to costs. Railway Co. v. Swan, 111 U S. 3lS7, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 510; Blacklockv. Small, 127 U. S. 105,8 Snp. Ct. Rep.1096 t Mayor v. Cooper, 6 Wall. 2.50. Each party is responsible to the officers. of tbe court for costs incurred at his instance.
et dl. v.
D. Pennsylvania. June 1, 1889.)
MARITTME LIENS-SUPPLIES FOR RESTAURANT ON BOAT.
Under the Pennsvlvania act giving liens against domestic vessels navigating the rivers Allegheny. Monongahela. or Ohio, a lien exists for supplies furnished to an excursion boat. and dispensed to passengers from a lunch·· counter kept on board the boat. such supplies having been furnished upon the credit of the boat on the order of the master, a part owner.
Debts thus contracted for soda-water, cider, and spirituous and malt liquors, supplied to the boat and dispensed thereon to passengers, are liens under the act.