Case Name: The Steamboat Ohio v. Alfred Stunt
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1856-12
Citations: 10 Ohio St. 582
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Steamboat Ohio v. Alfred Stunt.
Judges: Bowen and Soots, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 10
Pages: 473–478

Head Matter:
The Steamboat Ohio v. Alfred Stunt.
1. The statute of this state for the collection of claims against steamboats and other water-crafts, and authorizing proceedings against the same by name, together with its amendatory act, is simply remedial .in its nature, being designed to afford a convenient and speedy remedy against the property of the persons liable, and to provide some means of safety in the'collection of the claims, by fixing the liability of the property.
2. The property of one person can not be subjected to the payment of the debt of another, without invading the right of private property, which the constitution declares.“ shall ever be held inviolate; ” and whatever may be the ^competency of the legislative power to create such a liability, by way of forfeiture, penalty, or confiscation, upon the ground of public policy, it can not be done by mere implication; and in the absence of any provision expressly declaring the public duty exacted and providing for such liability, a statute providing for the collection of claims by a summary proceeding against property, by its seizure or attachment, must be construed as simply providing a remedy for the enforcement of liabilities, and not as creating new liabilities upon the owners of property, not arising at common law.
3. A steamboat is not liable to seizure, under the water-craft law of this state, for a willful assault and battery committed by the engineer of the boat on a'passenger, while the boat was on its passage on the Ohio river, beyond the' territorial limits of the state, with which trespass the owners of the boat were in nowise connected.
4. Although the legislature may provide remedies within this state, for the col lection of claims, or enforcement of personal liabilities arising out of the state, it is not within the competency of the legislative power, upon grounds of public policy, to create personal liabilities and impose them on persons and property out of the jurisdiction of Ohio, and on account of transactions occurring beyond the territorial limits of the state.
Error, to the district court of Hamilton county.
The original action was trespass on the case, brought in the Superior Court of Cincinnati, April 29,1851, by Alfred Stunt, against the steamboat Ohio, for an assault and battery committed April 27, 1851, by one Finn, one of. the engineers of the boat, upon the plaintiff, who was at the time a deck-passenger on board the boat. The boat and her engine, apparel, and furniture were seized under a warrant issued in the case.
In setting out his cause of action the plaintiff states, in his-declaration, in substance, that the steamboat Ohio, before and at the time of the infliction of the injuries upon him, was a common carrier of passengers and freight between New Orleans, Louisiana,, and Cincinnati, Ohio, for hire and reward, and that the plaintiff, at the request of the defendant, became and was a deck-passenger on board said defendant, to be carried from New Orleans to Cincinnati for reward; and that afterward, to wit, April 27, 1851, while the boat was navigating the. Ohio river between Louisville,. ^Kentucky, and Cincinnati, Ohio, and before her arrival at Oincinnati, “ one of the officers of *the boat, to wit, one of the engineers then and there employed on and by said boat, with force and arms, etc., then and there made an assault on the said plaintiff, and then and there with great force and violence seized and laid hold of him, the said plaintiff, by the arm, and shook and pulled him, and then and there with a certain stick held in his hands, gave and struck the plaintiff a great many violent blows and strokes on and about his head and face and arms, and divers other parts of his body," thereby then and there inflicting large and dangerous cuts and wounds upon the head, and bruises and wounds upon the arms of said plaintiff; and also with great force and violence then and there rent, tore, and damaged the wearing apparel ” of the plaintiff “ of the value of $30, which he, the said plaintiff, then and there was clothed with; by means of which said several premises, the said plaintiff was then and there greatly hurt', bruised, wounded, and bloody, and became and was sick, cut, sore, lame, and disordered, and so remained and continued for a. long space of time, to wit, for the space of eight.weeks then next following, during all which time he, the said plaintiff, thereby suffered and underwent great j)ain, and was hindered and prevented from performing and transacting his necessary affairs and business by him during that time to be performed, transacted, and done; and also thereby he, the said plaintiff,.was forced and obliged to and did necessarily pay, lay out, and expend a large-sum of money, to wit, $500, in and about endeavoring to be cured' of the cuts, bruises, wounds, sickness, soreness, lameness, and disorder aforesaid, occasioned as aforesaid; and also he, the said plaintiff, during the time last aforesaid, was forced and obliged and did necessarily pay out and expend a large sum of money, to-wit, $100, in and about the maintenance of himself during the said time he was unable to labor and work, by reason of said cuts, bruises, wounds, sickness,” etc., to his damage, etc.
The plea was the general issue, with a notice that the *boat was engaged in th.6 coasting trade from New Orleans to Cincinnati, under a regular license and enrollment from the general government, and was at the time navigating the Ohio river on her way from New Orleans to Cincinnati; and was at the time near-Louisville, Kentucky, and between that place and Madison, Indiana, and entirely out of and beyond the jurisdiction of the State of Ohio ; that no part of her was owned by the said engineer, but that she was wholly owned by John L. Black, William Hoel, and Peter Gandolpho, of Cincinnati, Ohio.
From the testimony set out in the record, it appears that the assault and battery wore the result of a sudden quarrel between the-plaintiff and the engineer, and that the engineer was of good character and peaceably disposed. At the trial, on appeal, at the April term, 1855, of the district court, the following facts were admitted by the parties:
“ That at the time said assault and battery were committed by the engineer, Finn, the said steamboat Ohio was wholly owned by John L. Black, Wm. R. Hoel, and Peter Gandolpho, of Cincinnati, Ohio, neither of whom were present at the time of the difficulty: Black, however, was on board as captain. There was no proof that either of the owners knew of or assented to the difficulty ; and no part of said boat was owned by said engineer Finn; that said boat was regularly enrolled and licensed according to- the laws of the United States to run upon the western waters generally, and to ■carry on the coasting trade by virtue of an enrollment and license issued by the collector of the port of Cincinnati, on the 5th day of December, 1850, which are hereto attached and marked ‘A’ and ‘ B,’ respectively, and made part hereof, which were in full force at the time said grievances are said to have been committed, and .at the time-this suit was commenced; that said boat was, at the time of the assault and battery, regularly running from Cincinnati, in the State of Ohio, to New Orleans, in the State of Louisiana, and from the latter place to the former, and carrying on said trade under her said enrollment *and license, and was, at the time of said assault and battery, upon a regular trip from said port of New Orleans to Cincinnati, and that the assault and battery took place on the Ohio river between Louisville, Kentucky, and Madison, Indiana; and wholly out of and beyond the boundaries .and limits of the State of Ohio.”
The defendant asked the court to charge the jury:
“1. That the facts admitted in this case constituted a bar to the plaintiff’s action, and that he could not recover in’ this cause.
“2. That the act of the legislature of Ohio, passed March 24, 1848, amendatory to the act called the common carrier act, passed February 26, 1840, so far as it allowed this suit to be brought .against the steamboat, when the cause and injury complained of took place out of the boundaries and limits of the State of Ohio, is repugnant and contrary to the constitution of Ohio and constitution and laws of -the United States, and is void; and that the plaintiff could not maintain this action, if the assault and battery took place beyond the boundaries and limits of the State of Ohio.”
The court refused to give those charges, and the defendant excepted. And the verdict being for the plaintiff, the defendant moved to set it aside and in arrest of judgment, because of alleged error in the court refusing to charge the jury as above requested; but the court overruled both motions, and entered judgment on the verdict; and the defendant excepted, and to reverse said judgment filed a petition in error in this court.
.Lincoln, Smith & Warnoch, for plaintiff in error.
JSdwin D. Dodd, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Bartley, C. J.
That the statute of this state for the collection, of claims against steamboats and other water-crafts, and authorizing ^proceedings against the same by name, together with its amendatory act, is simply remedial in its nature, being designed, to afford a convenient and speedy remedy against the property of the persons liable, and to provide some means of safety in the collection of the claims by fixing the liability of the property.
That the property of one person can not be subjected to the payment of the debt of another without invading the right of private property, which the constitution declares " shall over be held inviolate ; " and whatever may be the competency of the legislative imwer to create such a liability by way of forfeiture, penalty, or confiscation, upon the ground of public policy, it can not be done by mere implication; and in the absence of any provision expressly declaring the public duty exacted and providing for such liability, a statute providing for the collection of claims by a summary proceeding against property by its seizure or attachment, must be construed as simply providing a remedy for the enforcement of liabilities, and not as creating now liabilities upon the owners of the property, not arising at common law.
That a steamboat is not liable to seizure under the water-craft law of this state for a willful assault and battery committed by the engineer of the boat on a passenger, while the boat was on its passage on the Ohio river beyond ths territorial limits of the state, with which trespass the owners of the boat were in nowise connected.
'Although the legislature may provide remedies within this state for the collection of claims or enforcement of personal liabilities arising out of the state, it is not within the competency of tbe legislative power, upon grounds of public policy, to create personal liabilities and impose them on persons and property out of the jurisdiction of Ohio, and on account of transactions occurring beyond the territorial limits of the state.
This construction of the statute, in the opinion of a majority of the court, does not overrule a single reported adjudication *in the Ohio Reports, although it settles a rule upon principle, heretofore rendered uncertain by the inconsistent dicta in the reported, opinions. The opinion of Judge Hitchcock in the case of the' Steamboat Champion, 16 Ohio, 91, to the contrary, is merely obiter, .and substantially reversed by himself, after further consideration, in his dissenting opinion in the case of the Brig Andes, 18 Ohio, 206.
Judgment of the district court reversed, and cause remanded.
Bowen and Soots, JJ., concurred.
Swan, J.,
being of the opinion that it has heretofore been settled by the decision of this court that the statute, in order to exact from owners of water-craft the ajjpointment of proper agents, has made the craft liable for willful injuries by force committed by officers of .the craft upon the hands, dissented.
Brinkerhoee, J., was absent in the district courts when this ease was considered and decided.