The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-07-27
N HIRING A VESSEL.
Iudge Hanford Decides 1t a
Maritime Contract.
. QUESTION OF JURISDICTION.
c..rt of Admiralty Has It-Excep-
tfops to Libel Overruled-suit
over Telephone Poles.

,udpe Hanford, of the United States dis
,,;ct court, yesterday gave an important
S.c;s;on in the case of Granville 0. Halter,
,:hsI.nt. VS.. Charles l.. Fox, Adolph Beh-
an. and III. w. Baker, respondents, upon
~. jurisdiction of court of admiralty in
.ns ease of contract for the renting of q
.s,sel The courts opinion, which ex-
Mains the case fully, is as follows:
Granville O. Halter, libelant, vs.. Charles I.
- Adoluh Behrens and II. w. Baker, re-
spondenss.
Hamilton Lewis, for respondents.
In admiralty. Suit in personam on bond
.;ven by charterer to owner, conditioned for due
s.,to,mauce of conditions of contract for en-
rlov,neut OF steamboat for specified term.
The sureties fled exceptions to the libel ceny-
,rg the jurisdiction OF the court. Exceptions
oysrruled
HANFOgD, j.
On september 8, 1891, the defendant Fox hired
che steamboat Mary T. Perley for term of one
wear and, with her owner, the libelant, executed
q contract In writing whereby they stipulated
that said steamboat should during said term be
employed ia carrying passengers and freight
upou the waters of Puget sound, the straits of
Juan De Fuea and their tri butaries; that the
chsrterer should navigate, man and control her
aad bear all expenses incident to navigating
her and for supplies, insurance ana repairs, and
keep her bills paid so as TO prevent liens from
attaching and pay said owner for the use OF said
steamboat $3.50 per month, ana at the end of said
term deliver her again to said owner or in
case of her loss or destruction pay him the sum
of{0O0 To secure performance on his part OF
the conditions OF said contract said Fox as
principal, with his co-detendants as sureties,
gave to the libelant bond in the penal sum OF
1900 And this suit is brought upon said bond
TO recover damages In the sum OF $5,153.45, with
interest The libel charges that by reason OF
said Fox having absconded without having paid
for the use of said steamboat according to said
contract, leaving her IN the possession of other
parties, who put the libelant to the cost of a
suite recover possession OF her and leaving I'M
paid bills aud demands for supplies furnished
ana services rendered and for expenses and
charges incident to the use and navigation of
said steamboat, the libelant was COM
PEELED TO pay the same, with the fees and costs
OF suit in rem brought against her TO enforce
liens therefor, in order to recover possession of
said steamboat and clear her OF liens The
sureties on said bond have appeared and filed
exceptions TO the libel, alleging that the court
10 without jurisdiction, for that the subject
matter OF the suit is not equitable in a court
OF admiralty.
The bond in suit Is to be construed as IL it
contained all the promises and conditions of
the contract between the iibelant and Fox BY
this the respondent assured the libelant that
their principal would do and perform the things
specified in said contract, and obligated them
selves TO pay whatever damages should result
from any failure on his part. This suit, there
lore, 10 founded upon contract relating di-
rectly TO the employment, navigation, supply
Ing, repairing, insurance and possession of q
ship Contracts touching these several matters
are subjects Of admiralty jurisdiction in this
country. DE Lovio vs.. Bolt, 2 Gall, 39S; The
Tlton, Mason. 465: The sloop Mary, Paine,
61S; The Smilax 2 Pet. Adm, 1885, The Seneca,
Clip 10: New Eng. Mutual Ins. Co. VS.. Durham,
ii Bal., l; The Lottawanna, 81 Wall, $50; Rodd
vs. Heart, 81 Wall, $50; The Windermere, Fed.
Rep. ~; The Canada, 7 Fed. Rep, 123, S. c.
sawyer 49, Coast Wrecking Co. VS.. Phoenix Ins.
Co., 7 Fed. Rep, 2i2; The Guiding Star, 9 Fed.
Rep, 52i; Maury vs.Culiford, 10 Fed. Rep. 39l;
The Vidal sala, Il Fed. Rep, oil; The San Fer
nanao, ID, 3i2; The Wanbanshene, p Fed. Rep,
10; The Alberto. "A Fed. Rep, ISL: The Fannie,
Ben, 42e; The North Cape, 6 Bliss, sos; The
George I. Kemp. 2 Low, 177.]
In The case OF Cutler vs. Rae, q How, 7Z9), re-
lied upon by counsel for the respondents, a ma
iorly oil the supreme court held that in suit
against conslgnee to collect a sum claimed as
~N'"h4Sutitu III BeIlcldi average, Oh account Oh
goods delivered TO him, the principles of the
common law must be applied for by the mari
TINE law the lien upon the goods was dis
charged by delivery without creating any per-
sonas LIABILITY; that the implied promise to pay
arising from the receipt OF the goods was rooted
III The common law, hence there was no mari
time contract in the case and court of ad.
mraify was without jurisdiction. From the
nature OF the question which the court passed
upon. The case cannot be regarded as an author
iV applicable to case like the one at bar
"hich Is founded upon maritime contract
Although the contract under consideration
differs In form and phraseoogy from agreements
usuai In shipping and maritime transactions,
us validity as maritime contract ia not for
.na1 reason at all doubtful. BY the maritime
"a" mere form is not regarded az being of
gresser importance than substance and merits
Early III the history OF our government that
great larist Nr. Justice Story, In the case of De
s"F'o vs. Bolt, announced the doctrine, which
mas since received appreciation from the bench
ana bar, generally extending the Admiralty and
maritime jurisdiction of the courts of the United
states TO Include causes Of action arising CT con
H9la' which, In Eng aud, owing TO the jealousy
W tue common law judges and the power of the
'oari o. Kings bench To issue wrlts of prohibit
sVl' were excluded from the jurisdiction of the
"Igh court OF the admiralty. Ii was many years
hHef~ard that for the first time case before
we supreme court afforded an opportunity Tor
- 20 PASS upon precisely the same question.
on hnalIy in the insurance case of the New
.usiahu Mutual Insurance Company vs.. Dun
"Aia' The opportunity came, and in learned
ana exhaustive opinion by the late Mr. Justice
n'aa'ey, the court sanctioned Judge story's
.'e"s ana settled the controversy so long main
'uneu as to the jurisdiction of the admiralty
t'at's OF the United States over cases founded
Peh maritime contracts. Although not referred
= "ifeeNy, Cutler vs.. Rae has been considered
. o'effnsed by that decision. The district and
.IVui' courts have more than once treated IL Is
90 ofeftnied case. lSee Coast Wrecking Com
lazy VS.. Phoenix Insurance Company Fed
''Tp' ~ The San Fernando j. Fed. Rep, 3l.l
"'s my opinion that this suit is cognizabe rs
90 aAmira.iy cause IN This court, and that the
pAseP'ions tn the libel are not well founded.
exceptions oyerruled
want Pay for Telephone Poles.
pay Bros. brought suit yesterday