The weekly Minnesotian. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1852-1858, 1855-12-08
District Court Of Ramsey csrnfy. 7
NATHANIEL P. KERR,
ogaina 81 y94s
Steamboat "Falls City," ! aaaa.

This is demurrer to the complaint. The
Plaintiff claims to recover of the Defendant
the sum of four hundred and seventeen dol
lars andfifty- lone cents, for money advanced to
the master and manager of said boat to pur-
chase supplies for the same The complaint
alleges in a clear and Ineligible manner that
the money was advanced for the purpose OF
such supplies that it was imme-
diately expended for that purpose, and that
such supplies SO furnished were actually
fused upon said boat to enable her to pro-
coed on her usual business, i'll transporting
and conveying freight and passengers"
To this part of the complaint the Demurrer
raises the objection that inasmuch as the
Plaintiff advanced money only to purchase |
the supplies, and did not in fact furnish them
by his own delivery, he does not bring him
self within the terms and meaning of sec. l.
page 437 of the Revised Statutes of the
Territory. The language OF so much of the
section as apples to this case is that "every
boat shall be liable for all debts contracted
by the master, &c, on account of supplies
furnished for the use of said boat" The
facts alleged in the complaint being admitted
by the demurrer, the simple question arises
can third party who advanced money to a
master to furnish and supply the necessities
Vi d UOut NEcu lItOicy 10 ACTUALLY GA
pended for that purpose, maintain his action
by force of the Statute provisions above
cited ? The boat having received the sup
plies and used the Plaintiffs money, the
equity of the case is clearly with the Plain
tiff. But the action in this form is unknown
to the Common Law, and is founded upon
the Statute cited and therefore according to
all rules of law, must be construed with some
degree of strictness. This rule, however,
does not 60 so far as to compel a Court to
put such construction upon Statute pro-
vision as to pervert its obvious meaning and
intention.
A legitimate inquiry is, what did the Le-
gislature that enacted the law design to
effect by til The inquiry becomes necessary
in the Interpretation of all Statutes in order
to determine clearly the meaning of the Ian
guage used to harmonic what may seem
contradictory and explain that which is I'M
certain. If in the passage of the Statute
Law under consideration the Legislature de-
tsigned to enlarge the credit of boats and at
the same time protect the creditors by a
single Statute lien upon the boat in favor of
the creditor, it seems obvious enough that
the object was accomplished.
| 1t is the duty of Courts to give such con-
IStTuCtlOu W IuC SSNCldt ptiIto VI Vic law ia.
shall best carry out the intention of the
Legislature, and best subserve the interests
of those intended to be affected by it. The
language of the law is con account of sup
plies furnished for the use of such boat"
| Now, the most obvious meaning of this
language is this If any person by his money,
his credit or other means, supplies the ne
cessities of the boat he shall have a lien upon
| tho hfzk +o fbo cf fbo
1t is a most narrow construction, as it seems
to me, to say that he who furnishes the boat
with money to purchase the necessary sup
Iplies, is in worse Condition than he who in
the pursuit of his ordinary business sells his
goods to the boat for profit and gain.
/ The interests of the boat and Of the GYM
ers of the boat, are promoted in case Of
want of money to purchase supplies, more
by the advancement of the money sufficient
to obtain them, than by a delivery of the
necessary articles In the usual course of
trade, the supplies neoe~rary 10 run steam
boat on the Ni:~sissppi waters would be ne
cessarly purchased of many different persons
and at different places. 1t would be great
inconvenience both to debtor and creditor,
and sometimes Improbable, to divide and
subdivide the Indebtedness to an extent
which would often be necessary in the bus
mess Of the boat, if money lcould not be OBJ
tanned instead of supplies. ss---se e.1.s Z
1t requires no argument to show that the
interest of all parties is best promoted by
placing an amount of money in the hands of
the officers of the boat sufficient to make
the necessary purchases. - ..
The Common Law in. this country, though
not in England, gives the master a lien upon
the vessel for his necessary expenses, whe-
Their advanced in money or otherwise-see
Tngersoll VS.. Van Bokkelin, 7 .Cowan Rep.
| go; Lane VS.. Penniman, 4th Mass. 90;
Newhall VS.. Dunlop, IA M. Rep. 1872 and
such is now the settled law in this country,
3 Kent Com. l67 and note. -,
BY the Civil Law, the master or anu Other
person who fits out,a vessel or aduauces moaey
for that purpose, has lien upon the vessel
see authority cited in Kent los. find no
distinction any where made between case
of furnishing supplies and advancing money
for that purpose, nor can perceive the least
reason for it. 1t is fair always to presume
that Legislature when enactipg laws upon
any subject has in view the Common Law
upon the subject. If we take this view of
it, the Legislature which enacted this law,
knowing that by the Common Law an autho-
rity to furnish supplies and create lien,
necessarily included an authority to advance |
money for that purpose, must have intended
that the provision in question should receive
a similar practical and liberal construction.
An infant under the age of twenty-one
years is liable for money advanced for neces-
saries for his own use, and such is the set
tied law; and yet this doctrine is based ex-
clusively upon the principle that the infant |
is liable only for necessares. He is not, how
ever, liable for money loaned to him, to pro-
cure necessaries, and the reason given by the |
Courts why he is not is, that he is presumed |
to be incapable of expanding the money iu-
diciously: see Comyn on Contracts, 626, and |
cases there cited. There can be no pretence
in this case that the master of the boat was |
notquite as competent to purchase the nee
essary supplies, as a stranger who furnished |
the money would have been; and the reason
thereof applicable to the case of infants, does
not exist in this.
As where the wife can render her husband
liable only for necessaries, one who sends her
money to pay for such necessaries, may
an action against the husband
Starllie in his work upon evidence says =
"There seems to be no satisfactory reason
why one who has lent money to the wife.
(who has been turned out of doors by the
husband) in order to provide her with nee
essaries, should not be entitled to recover it
from the husband" 2 Starkie Ey. 697: see
also Harris as. Lee, cited in Note p. 698, same
volume: in which If was hold thof ono 1o.,, |