Document: 500 U.S. 603 111 S.Ct. 2071 114 L.Ed.2d 649 EXXON CORPORATION, Petitionerv.CENTRAL GULF LINES, INC., et al. No. 90-34. Argued April 15, 1991. Decided June 3, Syllabus Petitioner Exxon Corporation and Waterman Steamship negotiated a marine fuel requirements contract, in which agreed to supply Waterman's vessels with when the called at ports where could directly and, were had rely on local suppliers, arrange for, pay, those suppliers deliver then invoice Waterman. In transaction issue, acted as agent, procuring from supplier Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, for ship owned by respondent Central Gulf Lines, Inc., but chartered paid invoiced Waterman, filed bankruptcy never bill's full amount. When assume personal liability bill if court hold liable rem, commenced litigation District Court against personam claiming have maritime lien under Federal Maritime Lien Act. The concluded that it did not admiralty jurisdiction. Noting prerequisite existence of based breach contract is contract's subject matter must fall within jurisdiction, followed Second Circuit precedent, holds Minturn v. Maynard, 17 How. 477, 15 L.Ed. 235—in an agent who advanced funds repairs supplies necessary vessel was barred bringing claim vessel's owners—established per se rule excluding agency contracts admiralty. However, ruled Exxon's favor separate unpaid supplied New York. Appeals affirmed. Held: 1. Because there no exception overruled. incompatible current principles jurisdiction over contracts. rationales apparently rested—that action cognizable assumpsit excluded claimant some form interest sue contract—have been discredited are longer law this Court. See Archawski Hanioti, 350 532, 536, 76 617, 621, 100 676; see also, e.g., North Pacific S.S. Co. Hall Bros. Marine Railway & Shipbuilding Co., 249 119, 126, 39 221, 223, 63 510. § approach also inconsistent principle "nature subject-matter" issue should be crucial consideration assessing Insurance Dunham, 11 Wall. 1, 26, 20 90. And bar ill serves purpose grant protection commerce, Foremost Ins. Richardson, 457 668, 674, 102 2654, 2658, 73 300. There nothing relationship necessarily excludes such relationships realm rubrics "general agent" reveal about whether services actually performed nature. Pp. 608-612. 2. Admiralty extends regarding delivery Jeddah. lower correctly held York Since both claims—the value received ship—is same relates extend one other. P. 612-613. 3. This expresses view entitled Act leaves decided remand. 613. 904 F.2d 33 (CA 2 1990), reversed remanded. MARSHALL, J., delivered opinion unanimous Armand Maurice Pare, Jr., City, petitioner. Stephen L. Nightingale, Washington, D.C., U.S., amicus curiae, support petitioner, special leave Francis A. Montbach, respondents. Justice MARSHALL 1 case raises question claims arising 235 (1855), bring owners. has interpreted courts establishing We now consider * arose fuels acquired vessel, Green Harbour ex William Hooper (Hooper). Inc. (Central Gulf) (Waterman) use commerce. (Exxon) exclusive worldwide gas bunker oil 40 years. 3 1983, contract. Under terms upon request, would directly. Alternatively, provide fuel. cases, pay Thus, while contractual obligation placed order, met sometimes capacity "seller" other times "agent." 4 here, Arabian Operating (Arabian Marine) Arabia. October 4,000 tons Jeddah cost turn, $763,644. Shortly thereafter, sought reorganization Chapter Bankruptcy Code; amount bill. During proceedings, rem cost. 5 Subsequently, federal district rem. claimed Act, 46 U.S.C. 971 (1982 ed.).1 noted "[a] jurisdiction." 707 F.Supp. 155, 158 (SDNY 1989). Relying Circuit's decision Peralta Shipping Corp. Smith Johnson (Shipping) Corp., 739 798 (CA2 1984), cert. denied, 470 1031, 105 1405, 84 791 (1985), claim. F.Supp, 159-161. Peralta, constrained Court's supra, cases faithfully adhering Minturn, follow 802-804. rejected argument excepted because provided credit purchase thus more than mere agent. To create exception, reasoned, " 'would blur, obliterate, rather clear distinction.' F.Supp., 161, quoting 804.2 6 denied motion reconsideration. first acting seller Additionally, declined invitation limit either general or preliminary service contracts.3 Finally, determined even exception. 717 1029, 1031-1037 7 summarily affirmed judgment "substantially reasons given" two opinions. App. Pet. Cert. A2, judgt. order reported (1990). granted certiorari resolve conflict among Circuits scope decision4 498 ----, 750, 112 770 (1991). Today we overrule II 8 Section 1333(1) Title 28 grants "[a]ny civil determining boundaries look grant. 24, 90 (1871). As recently reiterated, "fundamental giving rise 'the commerce.' Sisson Ruby, 497 110 2892, 2897, 292 (1990), 300 (1982). requires us determine limits set consistent interest. 9 confounded many, think character three-paragraph best appreciated viewed its entirety: 10 "The respondents sued admiralty, process personam. libel charges they owners steamboat Gold Hunter; appointed libellant their broker; exhibits bill, showing balance accounts due money paid, laid out, expended respondents, paying supplies, repairs, advertising steamboat, numerous charges, together commissions disbursements, &c. below very properly dismissed libel, want nature case. shows demand between principal, assumpsit, common court, proper remedy. That was, whole part, bills will make maritime, give remedy Nor does California, authorizes attachment dealt credit, pledge, security vessel. 12 too plain argument." 477. 13 While disagreeing what sorts ambit, uniformly states barring least classes n. 4, supra.5 14 appears rested rationales: (1) agent's "demand accounts" remedied through assumpsit; (2) legal right advance monies "on vessel." rationale application then-accepted "the all matters account part owners," Steamboat Orleans Phoebus, 175, 182, 677 (1837), actions wrongful withholding money, 534, 620, 676 (1956) ("A line authorities emerged effect relief cases"). second premised deemed absent "hypothecation" pledge owner debts created pursuant words, Gardner Jersey, F.Cas. 1192, 1195 (No. 5233) (D. Pa.1806); generally, Note, Conn.L.Rev. 595, 597-598 (1985). Both these since discredited. Archawski, automatically Rather, "admiralty reads like indebitatus law, unjust enrichment result contract." S.Ct., 621. Only years after decided, cast considerable doubt "hypothecation requirement." (1871), explained that, falls true criterion subject-matter having reference transactions." Id., 26. Several subsequent edict Dunham relevance hypothecation requirement 510 (1919); Detroit Trust Thomas Barlum, 293 21, 47-48, 55 31, 40, 79 176 (1934).6 16 extent theoretical underpinnings can discerned, foundations moreover, irrelevant "[t]hat supplies," trend modern contrast, focus jurisdictional inquiry maritime. Kossick United Fruit 365 731, 735-738, 81 886, 890-892, 56 (1961). Krauss Lumber Dimon 290 117, 124, 54 105, 107, 78 216 (1933) ("Admiralty concerned action, substance"). proposition stands—a admiralty—ill noted, designed protect ----. Rubrics "special It inappropriate, therefore, status exists. Cf. Sisson, 2, 2896, ("the tidy rules go far, entirely divorces purposes exercise gone far"). 18 conclude therefore emphasize our ruling narrow one. remove only precedent body developed types Rather apply certain generally Kossick, 890-892 (analogizing substance established "maritime" obligations finding jurisdiction). III 19 remains does. Like Court, believe ships, arrangement 161. Golden Gate, 52 397 (CA9 1931) (entertaining furnished vessel), sub nom. Knutsen Associated Oil 284 682, 199, 576 (1932). case, difference asserted bought third party them Hooper. claim, ship. transactions relate one, Pacific, 128, 224 ("[T]here made . she afloat, dry dock, hauled up [on] land. identical several all").7 express before us, reversed, remanded further proceedings opinion. 21 so ordered. relevant provision amended recodified 31342. approximately 42 "supplier" respect delivery, $13,242 fell court's summary 161-162. here. rule, "preliminary services" enunciated early 1881. Thames, F. 848 1881) ("The distinction leading themselves [sic ] country first, yet departed from"). Circuit, rule—has fused rule. Cory States, 51 1010, 1012 (explaining involving contract). denying reconsideration, "disentangle" rules, asserting "as subset rule." 1036 Compare E.S. Binnings, M/V Riyadh, 815 660, 662-665, (CA11 1987) (general performance jurisdiction); 1984) (all excluded), (1985) Hinkins Agency, Freighters, 411, 411-412 1974) (per curiam ) (looking work "husbanding concluding "necessary continuing voyage"); id., 412 (arguably limiting opposed contracts); Hadjipateras Pacifica, S.A., 697, 703-704, (CA5 1961) (holding management operation "an accounting such"). Ameejee Valleejee Sons Victoria U., 661 310, 312 (CA4 1981) (espousing law" may invoke can). 1869, however, narrowed reach validity. Kalorama, 204, 217, 941 (1869) (distinguishing allowing agents "expressly advances steamer"). These decisions larger started 19th century eschewing restrictive prohibitions prevailed England. Waring Clarke, 441, 454-459, 226 (1847) constitutional adopt statutory judicial England); Propeller Genesee Chief Fitzhugh, 443, 456-457, 1058 (1852) (rejecting English tide-water doctrine "measure[d] tide"); Wall., 26 locality "which concedes [admiralty] few exceptions, sea executed thereon"). regarded "preliminary" characterized "a subset" doctrine. validity doctrine, nor do overruled

Category: 8