Case: Ramsay against Allegre
Abbreviation: Ramsay v. Allegre
Decision Date: 1827-03-02
Docket Number: 
Citation: 12 Wheat. 611
Volume: 25
Reporter: United States Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: Ramsay against Allegre.
Judges: 
Pages: 611–643

Head Matter:
[Admiralty Jdrisdictiok.I
Ramsay against Allegre.
Q'lttere, Whether a suit in personam in the Admiralty may be maintained against the ruvner of a ship by material men furnishing supplies fpr the ship In her home port, where the local law gives no specific hen <11,011 the ship which can be Enforced bya'proceedxng rn rem 1
However this may be in general, such suit cannot be maintained where the owner has given a negotiable promissory note for the debt, which is not tendered to be given up, or actually surrendered, at the hearing.
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Maryland.
This was a libel filed in the District Court, by the appellant,- Ramsey, against the respondent,'Allegre, alleging that the appellant? at the special instance and request of the respondent, owner, ship’s husband, or consignee of the schooner Dorothea, had performed various work and labour, and found and provided various materials for the use of the said schooner, to equip and prepare her for a voyage on the high seas, amounting to the sum pf 2,428 dollars, 84 cents; that the appellant had often applied to the respondent for payment, and been refused ; and praying process according to the course of the Admiralty, &c. A plea was filed by the respondent, alleging, among other things, that he had given the libellant his negotiable promissory note for the debt, it appeared, at the bearing, that the appellant had furnished the materials, in question at the respondent’s request, and
Feb 19th.
that the latter had given his negotiable promissory note for the same, which the appellant accepted, giving the foliowing receipt therefor-: “ Received a note, at four months, which, when paid, will be in full for the above amount.’’ The note not having been paid, this suit was brought. The District Court dismissed the libel, upon the ground, that the jurisdiction of that Court, as an Instance Court o! Admiralty, in the cause, was waived by the acceptance of the promissory note: and the decree having been affirmed in the Circuit Court, upon the same -ground, the cause was brought by appeal to this Court.
The Attorney General and Mr. Meredith, for the appellant,
argued, that the District Courts, proceeding as Courts of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, might take cognizance of material suits by material men, either m personam or in rem. The only question here was, whether the jurisdiction was waived bj the appellant’s taking the note as conditional payment. The note did not extinguish the debt, and, consequently, could not.affect the jurisdiction which originally attached on-account of the nature of the deht Without some special agreement to consider the note as payment, it could not be. so regarded. It only operated as a suspension of the remedy during the time allowed for its payment. If unpaid,-the party might resort to his original right of action, as.' if no note had been given. Such is the doctrine of the common law; and the civil law, which gave the rule to the .admiralty, would be found in accordance. A novation is the substitution of a new for an old debt,- by which the latter is extinguished. It may ba made of a debt payable at a'future day. or of a debt presently due, by á new-engagement, allowing a term of credit. But the consent of the creditor must be positively ’ declared, as the law will not presume that he means to abandon his rights under the first - contract. No authority or principle could be found to war-
March 2d.
Mr. Hoffman and Mr. Meyer, contra,
insisted, that the promissory note given in this case was a personal security taken on land, and in all respects assimilated the case to that of the claim for the master’s wages. Although, in general, locality might not be the test of admiralty jurisdiction, it might reasonably be contended that where the credit is personal, and thg security of a kind exclusively cognizable at common law the locality should fix the jurisdiction. In the case of coiitr... :s, the admiralty jurisdiction, in personam, ought to be merely co-extensive with the proceeding in rem: -and as the domestic character of the vessel freed the thing from jurisdiction, the person of the owner ought also to be exonerated. As a security hud been accepted, which had the effect of extinguishing a common law lien during the term of the note, no proci ss could tiavc becninstituted in the admiralty on the-original contract; and the idea, of reviving a jurisdiction, which had been thus suspended, was a novelty not countenanced by any legal-analogy. Supposing the jurisdiction of the Admiralty to be dependant upon the existence of a lien as defined by positive law, the authorities would show that such a lien was extinguished at fcommon law by a new agreement. It had been expressly determined, that in case» of dealings or obligations, - naturally1 within the appropriate jurisdiction of the Admiralty, if a special contract be entered into, or a special security betaken, the common law jurisdiction will attach as in ordinary cases, even though the new agreement docs not operate technically by way of extinguishment.
488.
Chitty on Bills, 5 ed 123. 130. 6 Cranch. 253. 2 H. Black. 317. 5 Term Rep. 111. 1 Evans' Pothier 386. (a.)
Evans' Pothier, 380. 386.
4 Wheat Rep. 438.
Yelv. 56. Selw. N. P. 1163. 3 Burr. 1498.
4 Burr. 1950. 1 Peters' Ad. Dec. 238. 6 Term Rep. 320. 2 Bro. Civ. and Adm. Law, 88. 97. 1 Salk. 31.

Opinion:
Mr. Chief Justice Marshall
delivered the -opinion of the Court: that, as it did not appear by the record, that the note had been tendered .to be given up, or actually surren dered, at the hearing in the Court below, the decree would be affirmed, it not being necessary to consider the general question of jurisdiction.