Case Name: Decoise M. Goodsill v. The Brig St. Louis
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1847-12
Citations: 16 Ohio 178
Docket Number: 
Parties: Decoise M. Goodsill v. The Brig St. Louis.
Judges: 
Reporter: Cases decided in the supreme court of ohio : upon the circuit at the special sessions in Columbus
Volume: 16
Pages: 150–152

Head Matter:
Decoise M. Goodsill v. The Brig St. Louis.
An action for supplies furnished to a steamboat, or other water-craft, can not be sustained against the boat by name, unless such supplies were furnished while the craft was navigating the waters within, or bordering upon this state.
This is a writ of error directed to the court of common pleas of Lucas county.
The original action was assumpsit, under the law authorizing suits against steamboats and other water-crafts by name.
It was tried by the court, the intervention of a jury being waived, and judgment rendered in favor of the defendant.
Whereupon a bill of exceptions was tendered by the plaintiff, and allowed by the court. This bill of exceptions discloses, in substance, the following facts: The plaintiff proved to the court that he had expended $350, in repairing and refitting the brig St. Louis, between the 1st day of August and the 1st day of December, 1844, as in his bill of particulars set forth. That such repairing and refitting was done under the procurement and direction of the master of the brig, at the city of Detroit, in the State of Michigan. That before and after said repairs, said brig had navigated the waters of Lake Erie from Buffalo, in the State of New York, to ports and places in the State of Ohio, and in the State of Michigan. The plaintiff further proved, and gave in evidence, an act of the senate and house of representatives of the State of Michigan, entitled “an act to ^provide for the collection of demands against boats and vessels.”
This act is set forth in the bill of exceptions. In its several features, it is like the law of Ohio upon the same subject, except that the “ craft ” is not made liable for the trespasses committed by its officers. The plaintiff proved that this act had been in force in the State of Michigan, from the time of its passage to the time of the trial of this case. Having made this proof, he rested.
Whereupon the defendant moved the court to nonsuit the plaintiff, which motion was sustained, and judgment of nonsuit was rendered.
The errors assigned are, in substance, that the court erred in rendering this judgment of nonsuit.
Hill & Bennett, for plaintiff.
Daniel MoBain, for defendant.

Opinion:
Hitchcock, J.
Two questions seem to be presented for consideration in this case. 1. Can an action be sustained in this state under the law of February 26, 1840, "providing for the collection of claims against steamboats and other water-crafts, and authorizing proceedings against the same by name," where the repairs made, or supplies furnished, are so made or furnished within the territory of another state? 2. If such action can not be sustained under the law of this state, can a law of a sister state, somewhat analogous to our own law, be enforced by the courts of this state?
As to the first question, it would seem to have been virtually decided in the case of Steamboat Champion v. Jantzen, decided at the present term of the court, in which it was held that the boat was not liable for an assault and battery, committed by the captain or mate upon a hand, unless the trespass was committed while the boat was navigating the waters within or bordering upon this state ; that where the trespass was committed entirely without and beyond the territory *of this state, the boat, by name, could not be sued, but that the party injured, so far as the courts of this state are concerned, must be left to his common-law remedy. Tthe act, in its phraseology, makes no difference between contracts and torts—that is, between such contracts and torts as are therein specified. If we are right, then, in the former decision, and we still entertain the same opinion, it follows that the evidence offered by the plaintiff, in the case now before the court, was not sufficient to authorize him to recover against the watercraft by name. It did not even conduce to prove a case which would authorize him thus to recover. The court of common pleas, therefore, decided correctly in ordering judgment of nonsuit.
As to the other question, it is sufficient to say, that this mode of proceeding is an innovation upon common-law remedies. So far as the action of the courts of the state are concerned, common-law remedies can be varied or changed by our own legislature alone. The legislature of another state can neither limit nor enlarge the jurisdiction of our own courts, nor vary or change the remedy prescribed by our own laws for their action. The law of the place where a contract is made, is the law of the contract whenever an attempt may be made to enforce it. But the law of the remedy depends alone upon the law of the state where that attempt is made.
By the law of Ohio, supplies furnished to a steamboat, or other water-craft, must be sued for as at common law, unless such supplies are furnished while the craft is navigating the waters within or bordering upon this state. The fact that Michigan has a statute furnishing a different remedy in such case, can not affect the courts of this state;
The judgment of the court of common pleas is affirmed, with costs.