Case Name: Steamboat Hyatt and Owner vs. Reitz & Haney
Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Kentucky
Decision Date: 1868-01-07
Citations: 4 Bush 395
Docket Number: 
Parties: Steamboat Hyatt and Owner vs. Reitz & Haney.
Judges: 
Reporter: Kentucky Reports
Volume: 67
Pages: 395–397

Head Matter:
CASE 21 — PETITION EQUITY
JANUARY 7.
Steamboat Hyatt and Owner vs. Reitz & Haney.
APPEAL FROM LIVINSSTON CIRCUIT COURT.
1. In an action in equity in the Livingston circuit court against the owner of the steamboat Hyatt, on a note given by him at Evansville, Indiana, for boilers furnished his boat and repairs of its engine, on a special contract made by the owner, the boat being attached, the circuit court properly rendered a personal judgment against the defendant, and also for enforcing the asserted lien on his boat.
2. Maritime contracts made on the sea, or any of its tributaries, not within the jurisdictional limits of any State, always operate in rem; and contracts for repairs or supplies of a- ship or boat, at the instance of the master only, and not at its home port, are made ex necessitate on the credit of the vessel, and, therefore, imply a lien on it; but—
3. When the contract for repairs or supplies of a vessel is made in the home port, or by the owner himself, there or elsewhere, it is presumptively made on his personal credit alone, and does not imply a lien on his vessel; and this latter class of contracts are not, in the constitutional sense, maritime, so as to give jurisdiction to the Federal courts, but all depend on the common law, and are remediable in the State courts, according to the local laws which guide and govern them.
W. D. Greer and John Rodman, For Appellants,
CITED-
Civil Code, sec. 264.
4 Wallace, 556; The Hiñe vs. Trevor.
4 Wallace, .411; The Moses Taylor.
Judiciary Act of Congress of 1789.
18 B. Mon., 261; Hughey, fyc., vs. Sidwell’s heirs.
C. Bennett, For Appellee,
CITED—
3 Mason, 91; Willard vs. Dorr.
4 Mason’s C. R., 380; Plummer vs. Well.
11 Peters ; Orleans vs. Phoebus.
20 Howard, 168; Grant vs. Poillon.
20 Howard, 401 ; People’s Ferry, Sfc., vs. Beers.
22 Howard, 130; Roach, fyc., vs. Steamer Capital.
19 Howard, 31 ; Thomas, fyc., vs. Osborn.
19 Howard, 91 ; Vandcwater vs. Mills.
23 Howard, 215; Philadelphia, Spc.

Opinion:
JUDGE ROBERTSON
delivered the opinion oe the court:
This suit in equity was brought by the appellees against the appellant on his promissory note for boilers furnished to his steamboat J. L. Hyatt, and repairs of its engine by them, in fulfillment of a special contract previously made with him as owner of the boat. Claiming a lien on the boat, the petition sought a judgment in personam, and also in rent. The contract was made at Evansville, Indiana; the appellant's domicil is Crittenden county, Kentucky; and his boat, running on the Ohio river, was attached at Smithland, on that river.
The circuit court rendered a personal judgment against the appellant, and judgment also for enforcing the asserted lien on his boat.
And the only question presented by this appeal is, whether the contract was technically maritime, and whether, therefore, the State or Federal court had jurisdiction to enforce it.
Maritime contracts made on the sea or on any of its tributaries, not within the jurisdictional limits of any State, always operate in rem; and contracts for repairs or supplies of a ship or boat, at the instance of the mas ter only, and not in its home port, are made, ex necessitate, on the credit of the vessel, .and, therefore, imply a lien on it. But when the contract is made^in the home port, or by the owner himself, there or elsewhere, it is presumptively made on his personal credit alone, and does not imply a lien on his vessel; and this latter class of contracts are not, in the constitutional sense, maritime, so as to give jurisdiction to the Federal courts, but all depend on the common law, and are remediable in State courts, according to the local laws, which guide and govern them. To sustain these positions, citations of authorities, which are abundant and uniform, would be unnecessary supererogation.
No Federal court could, therefore, have maintained jurisdiction in this case; and the resulting jurisdiction of the State court is the necessary and obvious alternative; and, consequently, the Code of Practice having given a lien on the boat in all such cases as this, the judgment in rem, as well as that in personam, must be affirmed.