Case Name: A SCOW WITHOUT A NAME. ROGERS v. A SCOW WITHOUT A NAME
Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1897-05-17
Citations: 80 F. 736
Docket Number: 
Parties: A SCOW WITHOUT A NAME. ROGERS v. A SCOW WITHOUT A NAME.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 80
Pages: 736–736

Head Matter:
A SCOW WITHOUT A NAME. ROGERS v. A SCOW WITHOUT A NAME.
(District Court, E. D. New York.
May 17, 1897.)
Admiralty Jurisdiction—House Boat—Lien for Towage.
A scow, which had been fitted up. with a cabin and other appurtenances to serve as a house boat, was chartered for the season, the owner agree - . mg with the charterers to share the profits after a certain date. The char- ' terers engaged the libelant to tow them to New London and back, without informing him that it was a chartered vessel. The answer in the case-objected to' the jurisdiction, that there was no admiralty lien on such a craft, and that the charterers were liable for the towage. Held, that the house boat was subject to admiralty liens, and that the towage was done on the credit of the boat.
This was a libel in admiralty by Robert Rogers against an unnamed scow to enforce an alleged lien for towage. The scow had been fitted up with a cabin and other appurtenances to serve as a house boat. It-was then chartered for the season, the owner agreeing to share the profits with the charterers after a certain date. The charterers procured the libelant to tow them to'New London and back, without informing him that the boat was chartered. The claimant set up in his answer a want of jurisdiction in the court on the ground that such a craft, was not the subject-matter of an admiralty lien, and that the charterers were liable for the towage.
Edwin Gr. Davis, for’ libelant.
Goodrich, Deady & Goodrich, for claimant.

Opinion:
BENEDICT, District Judge.
I have no doubt as to the jurisdiction of the court to entertain a proceeding to enforce a claim for towage against a house boat, and it seems to me that the evidence shows that the towage sued for was performed on the credit of the boat and her owners, in good faith. There was no bad faith in the transaction, and, in my opinion, the case of The Kate, 164 IT. S. 458, 17 Sup. Gt. 135, relied on by the claimant, does not apply. Decree for the libelant for the sum of $200.