Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-07-12
KNAPP, S. & C. co. v. M'CAFTREY.
Supreme Court OF Illinois.
February IT, 1899.


Supreme Court OF Illinois.
February II, 1899.
A STEAMBOAT OWNER ENGAGED
IN TOWING IS NOT A COMMON
CARRIER.
ONE TOWING A RAFT HAS A COM
MON LAW BAILEE'S LIEN ON 1T
WHILE IN HIS POSSESSION.
EQUITY WILL ENFORCE THE
TOwAGE LIEN ALTHOUGH RE-
LIEvE MAY BE HAD IN ADMI-
RALTY.
This was a bill to enforce a bailee's
lien on half OF raft OF lumber for tow
age OF the raft. While the raft was en-
the way plaintiff, by direction of de-
PENDANT. left half of 1t in Boston Bay
for the winter, and brought on the other
half to st. Louis. Defendant paid clerk
of the boa. at st. Louis $3.50. without
any directions as to Its applications.
and plaintiff applied 1t on the amount
due him for towage CT other RATS. The
defendant sold the half of raft at Bos-
ton Bay to another party which threat
encd to take possession of it, and this
salt was bi ought. The lower court de-
creed for plaintiff and defendant ap-
pc3led.
The court says:
Tho first question Is whether Nc
Caffrey had lien on the raft for his
towing charges while the raft was In
his possession. He had no lien by con-
tract, for that instrument gave him
none. A common carrier has, at COM
mon law. n specific lien upon the goods
carried for the charges of transporting
them. but the weight of authority is
that the owner If a steamboat engaged
In the business of towing is not q COM
mon carrier: and much more Is this SO
where. as here. he lows only for n
single party. The carrier of goods has
a lien thereon for his hire while he re-
tains possession. This lien extends to
all the goods delivered under one con-
tract, although they be delivered in
different parcels and al different times;
and the baiiec may letain any portion
OF them as lien upon the whole, even
If he has delivered a part. Up to the
time the whole raft reached Boston
Bay. McCafrrey had n lien on each
piece or parcel Of lumber therein for
the carriage OF the entire raft The
company could not change or defeat
that lien by directing him to divide the
raft and bring half to st. Louis first.
That direction was solely for his ben
eft. Mccartney was ready and willing,
and offered, to tow the half raft to St.
Louis; but was refused permission. and
his right to do so was denied by the
purchaser. This excused, and. indeed,
prevented his further performance.
Therefore McCaffrey had n common law
bailee's lien on said half raft in his
possession at Boston Bay, for the tow
ing Of the entire raft at the contract
price. We are OF opinion that under
all the circumstances it was proper for
him TO resort to n court of equity, and
bring all parties in interest before the
court. to have the question of his pos
session and lien, and the validity OF the
sale determined by a decree binding
upon all.
1t is said the court had no jurisdic-
tion, because this was a maritime lien.
and exclusive jurisdiction in such case
Is by act of Congress vested in the
courts of the United States sitting in
admiralty. Perhaps the sounder argu-
ment supports the position that such
raft on n navigable river is proper
subject OF admiralty Jurisdiction, but
where the question is left in so much
doubt by the conflicting decisions of the
various courts of admiralty, and the
opposite view Is supported by SO strong
authority as Chief Justice Toney and
Justice Grier, of the United States SUI
preme Court, the State Courts should
hesitate to renouncc Jurisdiction in n
case like this. where no proceeding af-
fecting the rights OF the parties has
ever been instituted In any court of
admiralty. We cannot hold that. be-
cause proceeding against the raft in
admiralty might afford some relief,
therefore n court OF equity must keen
Its hands Off, IL equitable circumstances
exist which justify It's granting relief
on we'll established equitable principles
against persons made defendants BY
the action OF the Knapp Company the
raft was withdrawn from the suit, and
a suit relative to liability upon n per-
sonal obligation was substituted there
for. The suit as so changed was not
within the jurisdiction of a court of adj
miralty. Judgment affirmed.
ou>u