Case Name: Many vs. Noyes & Prosser
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1843-05
Citations: 5 Hill & Den. 34
Docket Number: 
Parties: Many vs. Noyes & Prosser.
Judges: 
Reporter: Hill's Reports
Volume: 5
Pages: 34–35

Head Matter:
Many vs. Noyes & Prosser.
The revised statutes (2 R. S. 493, 4, et seq.) authorizing “proceedings for the collection of demands against ships and vessels,” apply only to ships and vessels which navigate the ocean, and such as are required to have a coasting license under the laws of the United States.
Accordingly, held, in this case, that a canal boat, navigating the canal between Albany and Troy, was not within the statute,
Debt on bond, tried before Cushman, C. Judge, at the Albany circuit in June, 1842. The bond bore date July 10th, 1840, and was conditioned to pay all such claims and demands as had been exhibited, and should be established to have been subsisting liens on the steam canal boat or vessel called the Red Bird. The bond was taken in a proceeding under the statute authorizing the attachment of ships and vessels on account of liens for work, materials, &c. (2 R. S. 493, tit. 8.) On the trial, it appeared that the plaintiff had furnished an engine and other things to the master of the boat, for the purpose of fitting it to navigate the canal by steam. The boat was at the time in the basin at Albany. The witness had never seen it navigated except in the canal between Albany and Troy. It was a “common ordinary canal boat” of 40 or 50 tons burthen. The defendants moved for a nonsuit on the ground that this was not a ship or vessel within the meaning of the statute, which motion was denied. The plaintiff had a verdict, and the defendants now moved for a new trial on a bill of exceptions.
S. Stevens, for the defendants,
cited 2 R. S. 493, § 1, 2; Birbeck v. Hoboken Ferry Boats, (17 John. 54;) Walker v. Blackwell, (1 Wend. 557;) Farmers’ Delight v. Lawrence, (5 Wend. 564.)
I. Harris, for the plaintiff,
cited Wakeman v. Newton, (21 Wend. 260.)

Opinion:
By the Court, Bronson, J.
It is impossible to distinguish this case from those cited at the bar. The present statute is substantially like the former ones. It only applies to ships and vessels which navigate the ocean, and such as are required to have a coasting license under the laws of the United States. If this were a new question, I should be of that opinion. In common parlance, a canal boat is not a " ship or vessel." But it is enough that the question is decided.
New trial granted.