Case ID: ohio-st_7/html/0432-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The Steamboat Monarch v. The Marine Railway and Dry-Dock Company.
    The captain of the steamboat Monarch hired a barge at Cincinnati, by contract, in the name of the boat and on behalf of her owners, for the purpose of loading the barge with lumber at Louisville, to be taken in tow of the steamer to St. Louis. This purpose was made known to the owners of the barge at the date of the contract. The captain of the Monarch intended to carry out this purpose for the benefit of the Monarch and her owners, who were aware of the contract, and sanctioned it.
    The Monarch took the barge in tow, loaded, at Louisville, but the water had become so low that she could not go to St. Louis, but procured another steamboat to tow the barge and freights there. Held, that the Monarch was liable, under the water-craft law of Ohio, in an action against her by name, for the hire of the barge, although she was transferred to new owners after the hiring, and before suit.
    Motion for leave to file a petition in error to reverse the judgment of the Superior Court of Cincinnati,
    On the 28th of May, 1856, at Cincinnati, the captain of the steamboat Monarch, a vessel navigating the waters bordering upon the State of Ohio, in the name of the boat and on behalf of her owners, hired, by written .contract, of the'Marine Railway and Dry-Dock Company, the barge Wide Awake, at the rate of ten dollars per day, for the purpose of loading the same with lumber Rt Louisville, and transporting the lumber, on the-barge, in tow <of the Monarch, from Louisville to 'St. Louis, which purpose was made known to said company at the date of the contract. The> captain intended to carry out this purpose for the benefit of the-Monarch and her owners, who were aware of the contract, and sanctioned it.
    *The Monarch, that trip, was loaded with lumber and shingles, principally"; and the barge, having been sent ahead by the captain of the Monarch, to Louisville, and loaded, was there taken in tow of the Monarch about the first of June, 1856; but the water-had become so low that the Monarch could not go to St. Louis, and procured another steamboat to tow the barge to St. Louis. The largest amount of the freights of the lumber, etc., shipped on the barge, was applied to the expense of getting the barge towed to St. Louis, and the remainder was used for the steamboat Monarch; and. the Monarch could not have taken all the freights without the barge.
    The barge was retained under the contract ninety-two days.
    The Monarch passed into the hands of new owners, by a sale, in. Lec.ember, 1856.
    In January, 1857, said company brought suit in the Superior Court of Cincinnati against the Monarch, by name, for the hire of' the barge. The case was submitted to the court at special term,, and the court found against the boat for the hire of the barge.
    A motion was made on behalf of the boat to set aside the finding, and for a new trial, on the ground that the finding was contrary to law.
    The Superior Court, at general term, on this motion reserved,., affirmed said finding, and judgment was entered.
    To reverse this judgment, a motion is made on behalf of the Monarch, for leave to file a petition in error in the Supreme Court.
    
      Coffin & Mitchell, for the motion,
    insist that the Superior Court erred, because:
    1. A steamboat is not liable to be sued by name, even for sup- • plies, after a change of owners; and,
    2. This barge was not in any sense within the “supplies” of the-statute.
    
      King, Anderson, and Sage, contra.
   By the Court.

Motion overruled.