Case ID: ala_39/html/0351-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ALLMAN vs. RIPLEY.
    [PROCEEDINGS IN ADMIRALTY AGAINST STEAMIiOAT.]
    1. Sufficiency of libel. — A libel in admiralty, to enforce a statutory lien against a steamboat for services rendered, (Code, § 2692,) must speeiiy the nature of the services, or the capacity in which they were rendered by the libellant, or otherwise show that they are within the terms of the statute.
    Appeal from the City Court of Mobile.
    Tried before the Hon. H. Chaiíbeelain.
    The appellee in this ease filed a libel, on the 20th June, 1861, against the steamboat P. G. Wallis, alleging that, “ at the instance of the master and his agents, within six months last past, and while the said steamboat was navigating the waters of this State, he performed services on said boat, to the amount of $88, an account of which is hereto attached; that the particulars of said account are more fully shown by the account herewith filed, amounting in the whole to said sum of $83, which was justly due on the first day of June, 1857 (?) and is still unpaid.” The account attached to the libel contained only one item, which was, “To balance of bill rendered for services rendered on said boat, $83.” J. ~W. Allman and others intervened as stipulators, and filed a plea, excepting to the libel on account of its insufficiency in law. There is no bill of exceptions in the record, nor does the record show the ruling of the court on the exceptions to the libel. The decree recites, that the libellant proved his claim, that the claim was a proper lien on tbe boat, and that tbe bbellant recover tbe amount from tbe stipulators. Tbe • errors assigned relate to tbe insufficiency of tbe bbel.
    Geo.'N. Stewaet, for appellants.
   Per Curiam.

It seems to us that ;tbe libel is fatally defective, in omitting to show that tbe bbebant rendered tbe services, for wbicb be sues, in some one of tbe capacities specified in tbe latter clause of section 2692 of tbe Code, or that tbe services were rendered for one of tbe objects specified in tbe former clause. "We therefore tbint that tbe court erred in not bolding tbe bbel insufficient, and in proceeding to render judgment upon it,

Reversed and remanded.