Case ID: ohio-st_7/html/0413-01.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. M. D. Potter & Co.
    P. & Co., under contract with the officers of a steamboat navigating the waters within and bordering on. this state, published in their newspaper advertisements of the times of the departure of the boat on various trips; also furnished the material and printed and delivered on board the boat, a quantity of bills of fare to be used at the table of the boat, and a quantity of bill-heads to be used in making out accounts due to the boat; also a quantity of notices to consignees, to be used in notifying consignees that their freight was ready for delivery by the boat; and a quantity of cards with the name of the boat and of her captain upon them, designed to be distributed as advertisements ; and a quantity of bills or posters, having blanks to be filled, designed to be posted up in various places as advertisements of the' boat and the times of her departure on her various trips. These articles, thus-delivered to the boat, were supplied for her equipment, and were such as-are generally used by steamboats on the Ohio river as part of their equipment, and were furnished on the credit of the boat.
    The persons who owned the boat during the time and after said articles were furnished, sold the boat before action was brought against the boat by name. Held—
    1. That the advertisements in the newspaper could not be recovered for in the-action, because not within the provisions of the a.ct for the collection of claims against water-crafts. But,
    2. That the bills of fare, bill-heads, notices to consignees, cards, and bills or posters are within the provisions of said act, as supplies for equipping the boat.
    3. That, for the articles last named, a recovery may be had against the boat, notwithstanding the change of owners.
    This is a motion for leave to file a petition in error to reverse the judgment of the Superior Court of Cincinnati.
    In April, 1857, M. D. Potter & Co. brought suit in the Superior-Court of Cincinnati against the steamboat Monarch by name.
    In January, 1858, the case was tried by the court in special term, and the court found the following facts;
    That the defendant from the 25th day of November, A. d. 1854,. until the (then) present time, had been a steamboat navigating the waters within and bordering upon the State of Ohio. That the plaintiffs, between the 25th day of November, a. d. 1854, and the 26th day of May, a. d. 1855, under contracts with the officers *of the defendant, published in their newspaper, the Cincinnati Commercial, advertisements of the times of the departure of the defendant on various trips. That the plaintiffs, between the ■same dates, and under contracts with the master of said boat, printed on material furnished by them, and delivered on board of the defendant, a quantity of bills of fare, to be used at the table of the •defendant; and a quantity of bill-heads, and notices to consignees, to be used respectively in making out bills for accounts due to the •defendant, and in notifying consignees that their freight was ready for delivery by the defendant; and a quantity of cards with the name of defendant and the name of the captain upon them, designed •to be distributed as advertisements; and a quantity of bills or posters of various sizes and qualities, having blanks to be afterward filled, designed to be posted up in various places, as advertisements of the defendant and of the times of her departure on her various trips; and that the articles thus delivered by the plaintiffs to the defendant were supplied for her equipment, and were such as are in general use by steamboats on the Ohio river, as part of their equipment, and were furnished on the credit of defendant; and that the persons who, between the 25th day of November, a. d. 1854, and the 26th day of May, a. d. 1855, had been the owners of the defendant, subsequently to the latter date, and prior to the commencement ■of this action, sold her to other persons, who are now her owners.
    Upon this state of facts the court held as matter of law: “ That the price charged by the plaintiffs for their advertisements in their newspaper can not be recovered in this action, because not within the provisions of the act for the collection of claims against water-•crafts; but that the bills of fare, bill-heads, notices to consignees, cards, and bills or posters above referred to, were within the provisions of the act aforesaid, as supplies for equipping the defendant; and that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover from the defendant in this action the balance due for the articles last mentioned,” and rendered judgment accordingly.
    Defendant excepted, and moved to set aside the judgment and •for a new trial, on the ground that the decision was contrary to law. The motion was overruled.
    *Tke Superior Court in general term affirmed this judgment.
    
      Coffin & Mitchell, on behalf of the boat,
    make a motion in the Supreme Court for leave to file a petition in error to reverse the judgment below, and insist: 1. That the articles for which judgment was rendered were in no sense supplies within the meaning of the law; and, 2. That a steamboat is not subject to suit, even for supplies, after an entire change of owners.
    ' J. H. Qetzendanner, for defendants in error.
   By the Court.

Motion overruled.