The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-10-17
INTERESTING ADMIRALTY SUIT.
Judge Hanford Dismisses the Case 70
Want OF Jurisdiction.


Judge Hanford, of the United States district
court, yesterday delivered an interesting opin-
Ion in the case of r. o. Lavender VS.. the
schooner Henry Dennis. holding that q suit can
not be maintained in court OF admiralty on q
contract between citizens OF the same state,
without judgment having FIRST been obtained
on the contract in the state where 1t was made.
The plaintiff alleged that in November, 1888. at
Boatcn, Mass, he made an agreement with
Joshua Brown, William Pray and William Nor
ton, by which he was to take charge Of the seal
ing schooner Henry Dennis and take her on Q
cruise 10 Bering sea. When he had caught
enough seals to pay for the vessel he was to
be given q one-feurth interest In her.
He continued under the agreement until
September, 1890, when the catch had assumed
sufncient proportions 70 pay for the schooner.
The owners then refused TO grant him the prom
ised interest and sold the vessel to J. C. Nixon
and +. p. Miner for $500. These men had been
given notice not TO pay over one-fourth of the
purchase money TO Brown, Pray d Norton.
A demurrer was tnterposed to the plaintiffs
pleading and the hearing yesterday was on the
demurrer. The case was argued by James Ham
ilton Lewis for the claimant and by w. F.
Hayes, of Port Townsend, and w. d. Tyler for
the libcllant. Judge Hanford's opinion was a.
follows:
The libel sets forth q contract between the IL
hellant and three others who were then owners
Of the schooner Henry Dennis, by which it was
agreed that the vessel was TO engage in certain
employment and be commanded by the libellant,
ana that upon certain terms and conditions he
was to acquire an ownership OF one-fourth part
Of the vessel, and alleges performance on libel
ianfs part of said contract, and subsequently
thereto sale OF the vessel for q definite price.
The object of this suit IL to recover onsfourth
Of said purchase price.
1t IL not clear TO me whether the libellant
wages this suit to specifically enforce an execu-
tory contract, by which upon certain terms and
conditions he was given o right to acquire an
interest part owner OF the schooner, or to
recover damages for breach of such contract, or
Tor an accounting between owners and division
Of the proceeds OF the sale OF the scho oner. to
recover from the purchaser a part OF the pur-
chase price proportionate to his snare
part owner OF the vessel treating the
Of sale. But IL is clear that
The libel does not allege facts from
winch the court can find that there is an exist
ing lien upon the vessel in the libellants favor
Without lien q suit in rem is baseless, and cam
not be maintained upon either theory. The ar
gumens of counsel upon the hearing has
touched many points OF interest, but after care
full consideration find no question requiring
the assignment of special reasons or elaboration
OF arguments in deciding IL. Upon the author
ity OF Desty's shipping and Admiralty, page 4S,
and the decision of the supreme court of the
United States in the case OF the Eclipse, 1S5 u.
B., page 500, and the cases therein referred to,
hold that the case must DO dismissed for want of
jurisdiction III this court OF the subject matter,
and decree will be entered accordingly.