« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
not open in a case in which no maritime lien | to issue bonds for $48,000, to be secured by is asserted. *
mortgage upon its property. On April 5, Courts-state or Federal jurisdiction-en-1902, Boland and Prindeville assigned the
, forcing lien on vessel.
contract to the Iroquois Transportation 3. The enforcement of a lien given by a Company. Payments were made on the con. state statute upon a vessel for materials tract as follows: furnished after she was launched is within
$7,500, at date of signing contract; the jurisdiction of a state court, where such materials were really furnished for the com
7,500, April 3, 1902; pletion of the vessel, and were fairly a part
4,000, April 14, 1902; of her original construction.f
4,000, June 15, 1902; Commerce-state regulation-enforcing lien
4,000, July 15, 1902. on vessel.
An additional $4,000 was paid on October 4. The exclusive control over interstate 3, 1902, and two negotiable notes of $4,000 commerce vested in Congress by the Federal given, maturing respectively November 1, Constitution or laws is not infringed by the 1903, and November 1, 1904. enforcement against a vessel engaged in in- The steamer was launched March 21, terstate commerce of a lien given by a state 1903. After she was in the water the work statute for materials furnished for her con
On July 18,
on the contract continued. struction. Courts-state or Federal jurisdiction—en- and licensed to be employed in domestic and
1903, she was inspected, measured, enrolled, forcing lien on vessel.
5. A contract to build a ship, not being foreign trade. This license was issued in a maritime contract, which can only be enthe name of the Columbia Iron Works as forced in a court of admiralty, a lien given owner. by a state statute for materials furnished On July 19, 1903, the Iroquois Transin her construction may be enforced against portation Company received a bill of sale the vessel in a state court.1
of the steamer and delivered to the Colum.
bia Iron Works ninety-six negotiable bonds [Nos. 218, 219.]
of $500 each, secured by mortgage on the Argued February 28, 1907. Decided April 8, steamer, and paid the balance of the pur1907.
chase money, which was to be paid in cash,
then amounting between $400 and $500. N ERROR to the Supreme Court of the The agreement recited that possession was
State of Michigan to review two judg. given to the Iroquois Transportation Com. ments affirming decrees of the Circuit Court pany for the purpose of completing and finof Wayne County, in that state, enforcing ishing up those things still remaining unliens against a vessel for materials and sup. done on the steamer and required to be plies furnished for her construction. done by the iron works by the terms of the
See same case below, 142 Mich. 84, 105 contract for the construction of the steamer, N. W. 527.
“it being the sole intent and purpose of this
agreement to enable the Iroquois Trans. Statement by Mr. Justice Day:
portation Company to obtain immediate posThese cases may be considered together. session of the steamer, and without intendThey are writs of error to the judgments of ing either to limit the extent of the obligathe supreme court of Michigan affirming the tion of said Columbia Iron Works under the decrees of the circuit court of Wayne county, original specifications.” Michigan, enforcing liens for the De Laney The steamer left St. Clair for Lorain, Forge & Iron Company, defendant in error, Ohio, July 19, 1903. At that time she was in 218, and George W. Edwards and others, not completed, and workmen remained on defendants in error in 219, and interveners her and went with her to St. Clair, where in the original case.
additional work was done upon her.
She The Winnebago, a steel steamer of 1,091 was afterwards engaged in carrying cargoes tons burden, was built by the Columbia between points on Lake Erie and Lake Su. Iron Works, at St. Clair, Michigan. The perior.
i contract price was $95,000; date of con- On July 30, 1903, the Columbia Iron tract, March 8, 1902; between the Columbia Works made an assignment for the benefit Iron Works and John J. Boland and Thomas of creditors. On August 25, 1903, the De J. Prindeville. It was understood that these Laney Forge & Iron Company served notice persons should organize a corporation to be on the Iroquois Transportation Company known as the Iroquois Transportation Com- that it made a claim of lien against the pany. The contract price was to be paid, steamer for forging and material furnished; $31,000 in cash, from time to time; for the and on October 6, 1903, complaint was slod balance the transportation company was to in the circuit court of Wayne county, Mich. execute its notes to the amount of $16,000, / igan, and shortly thereafter Edwards and
*Ed. Note. For cases in point, see vol. 10, Cent. Dig. Constitutional Law, $ 39. Ed. Note.-For cases in point, see vol. 34, Cent. Dig. Maritime Liens, 111.
others intervened in the case, claiming ay of state law, upon which the judgment of lien. The Iroquois Company gave a bond the state court is final and conclusive. The under the statute for the release of the ves- same may be said as to the objection besel. Decrees were rendered in favor of the cause the transportation company was a claimants and interveners in the circuit bona fide purchaser without notice of comcourt of Wayne county, and upon appeal plainant's lien, and because complainant did they were affirmed in the supreme court of not within a year file its claim for a lien Michigan, 142 Mich. 84, 105 N. W. 527. with the proper court in the county in which
it resided. These are state questions, like. Messrs. Charles E. Kremer and William T. wise concluded by the decision of the state Gray for plaintiff in error.
court. Messrs. Herbert K. Oakes, John C. Shaw, It is further contended that to seize the Charles B. Warren, William B. Cady, Jos- vessel and subject her to sale and the pro. eph C. Hamblen, Jr., and Hugh Shepherd ceeds thereof to distribution in the state for defendant in error.
court would be in direct conflict with the
exclusive jurisdiction in admiralty in the Mr. Justice Day delivered the opinion of courts of the United States in favor of the court:
liens of a maritime character, and thereThe Michigan statute under which the fore the Michigan act is unconstitutional. liens are claimed in this case is as follows: No maritime lien is asserted in this case,
“Third Compiled Laws of Michigan, p. and it is merely a matter of speculation as 3254:
to whether any such claim existed, or might "(10789) Sec. 2. Every water craft of be thereafter asserted. No holder of any above 5 tons burden, used or intended to such maritime lien is here contesting the be used, in navigating the waters of this constitutionality of the state law. state, shall be subject to a lien thereon: In a case from a state court, this court
“First, for all debts contracted by the does not listen to objections of those who do owner or part owner, master, clerk, agent, not come within the class whose constituor steward of such craft, on account of sup- tional rights are alleged to be invaded; or plies and provisions furnished for the use hold a law unconstitutional because, as of said water craft, on account of work done against the class making no complaint, the or services rendered, on board of such craft law might be so held. This was distinctly by seamen or any employee other than the ruled in a case decided at this term. New master thereof; on account of work done or York ex rel. Hatch v. Reardon, 204 U. S. service rendered by any person in or about 152, 51 L. ed. 415, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 188. See the loading or unloading of said water craft; also Albany County v. Stanley, 105 U. S. on account of work done or materials fur. 305–311, 26 L. ed. 1044-1049; Lampa sas v. nished by mechanics, tradesmen, or others, Bell, 180 U, S. 276, 283, 284, 45 L. ed. 527, in or about the building, repairing, fitting, 530, 531, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 368; Clark v. furnishing, or equipping such craft: Pro. Kansas City, 176 U. S. 114-118, 44 L. ed. vided, That when labor shall be performed 392–396, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 284; Cronin v. or materials furnished, as aforesaid, by a Adams, 192 U. S. 108–114, 48 L. ed. 365subcontractor or workman other than an 368, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 219. original contractor, and the same is not paid. There is no one in position in this case for, said person or persons may give the to make this objection, and, for aught that owner or his agent, or the master or clerk this record discloses, no such maritime lien of said craft, timely notice of his or their existed. If this statute is broad enough said claim, and from thenceforth said per to include strictly maritime liens, it can son or persons shall have a lien upon said only be held unconstitutional, in a case comcraft pro rata for his or their said claims, ing from a state court, where the complaint to the amount that may be due by said own. on that ground is made by the holder of er to said original contractor for work or such a demand. We agree with Judge Sevlabor then done on said water craft."
erns, speaking for the circuit court of apSeveral objections are urged by the plain-peals for the sixth circuit, in a case directly tiff in error which, if sustained, will re- involving this question, where other claim. sult in the reversal of the judgments of ants upon the Winnebago had removed & the supreme court of Michigan. Some of case to the United States circuit court for them are of a non-Federal character. It the eastern district of Michigan, whence it is insisted that the statute does not ap- was taken to the circuit court of appeals : ply in this case, because the steamer Winne- “And the fact that she [the Winnebago] bago was not to be used in navigating the might become subject to maritime liens waters of Michigan, within the terms of the would not destroy liens already lawfully acstatute. But this only presents a question quired. It is true she might become subject
to maritime liens which would be superior | Cas. No. 7,060; The Victorian, 24 Or. 121, 41 to the existing lien, and that such liens Am. St. Rep. 838, 32 Pac. 1040; The Winnewould have to be enforced in the admiralty. bago, 73 C. C. A. 295, 141 Fed. 945. But that possibility does not defeat the en- It is urged that the attempt to enforceforcement by a state court of the nonmari- the lien on the vessel was while she was. time lien to which she is subject. How else engaged in interstate commerce, and thereis the owner of the latter to obtain his rem-fore proceedings against her were unlawful edy? It may be the vessel will never be and void, in view of the exclusive control come subject to maritime liens at all; and, of this subject by Congress under the Conif so, the holder of the existing lien may stitution and laws of the United States. But never have even the privilege of proving his it must be remembered that concerning conclaim in some cause instituted for another tracts not maritime in their nature, the state purpose. But no such supposed embarrass- has authority to make laws and enforce ment has yet occurred. And they are as yet liens, and it is no valid objection that the imaginary. But suppose such other liens enforcement of such laws may prevent or should attach. That should not prevent the obstruct the prosecution of a voyage of an enforcement of the earlier lien in the proper interstate character. The laws of the states court. If the holder of the earlier lien de- enforcing attachment and execution in cases lays his action, he subjects himself to the cognizable in state courts have been susdanger of superior liens becoming fastened, tained and upheld. Johnson v. Chicago & P. and the enforcement of his own lien in the Elevator Co. 119 U. S. 388-398, 30 L. ed. state court must leave the vessel subject to 447-450, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 254. The state the superior liens of which the state court may pass laws enforcing the rights of its cannot take cognizance. If occasion re- citizens which affect interstate commerce, quires, and the admiralty court enforces the but fall short of regulating such commerce superior liens, it is in no wise obstructed by in the sense in which the Constitution gives the action of the state court, and a title exclusive jurisdiction to Congress. Sherlock under a decree of the former court would de- v. Alling, 93 U. S. 99-103, 23 L. ed. 819, feat the title gained under the decree of 820; Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U. S. 1, 23, 32 the state court. The case of Moran v. Stur. L. ed. 346, 351, 2 Inters. Com. Rep. 232, 9 ges, 154 U. S. 256, 38 L. ed. 981, 14 Sup. Sup. Ct. Rep. 6; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Ct. Rep. 1019, is a good illustration of Hughes, 191 U. S. 477, 48 L. ed. 268, 24 this subject. There is no difficulty other Sup. Ct. Rep. 132. than such as may happen in case one court Upon the subject, Mr. Justice Brown, should take and have possession of the ves-speaking for the court in Knapp, S. & Co. sel at a time when the other should re-Co. v. McCaffrey, 177 U. S. 638–642, 44 L. quire it; but that is an incident common ed. 921-923, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 824-827, said: along all the lines of concurrent proceedings “That wherever any lien is given by a. in the state and Federal courts, and gives state statute for a cause of action cognizable no ground for the denial of jurisdiction to in admiralty, either in rem or in personam, either.” The Winnebago, 73 C. C. A. 295, proceedings in rem to enforce such lien are 141 Fed. 945.
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the adIt is next insisted that the materials and miralty courts. supplies were not furnished on the credit of “But the converse of this proposition is. the vessel, but were contracted for, fur- equally true, that if a lien upon a vessel be nished, and delivered on the credit of the created for a claim over which a court of Columbia Iron Works.
admiralty has no jurisdiction in any form, The findings upon this proposition are such lien may be enforced in the courts of again questions within the exclusive juris- the state. Thus, as the admiralty jurisdicdiction of the state court. The findings will tion does not extend to a contract for buildnot be disturbed here.
ing a vessel, or to work done or materiIt is next objected that the court erred als furnished in its construction (People's because certain items were allowed for ma- Ferry Co. v. Beers, 20 How. 393, 15 L. ed. terial furnished the vessel after she was 961; Roach v. Chapman, 22 How. 129, 16 L. launched, and therefore the subject of exclu- ed. 294), we held in Edwards v. Elliott, 21 sive jurisdiction for which a lien could only Wall. 532, 22 L. ed. 487, that in respect to be enforced in the admiralty. But we agree such contracts it was competent for the with the state court that these items were states to enact such laws as their legislatures. really furnished for the completion of the might deem just and expedient, and to provessel, and were fairly a part of her original vide for their enforcement in rem.” construction. In such a case the remedy The contract in this case being for the was within the jurisdiction of the state construction of a vessel, and its enforcement court. The Iosco, 1 Brown, Adm. 495, Fed. within the power and jurisdiction of the
state courts, we do not think that execu- latter a minor, suing by her mother and tion of such a decree can be avoided because next friend, and both being citizens of the vessel engaged in interstate commerce. Texas, against the Chicago, Rock Island, &
Finally, an elaborate and able argument Pacific Railroad Company, an Illinois coris made in support of the contention that poration. a contract to build a ship is a maritime The plaintiffs in error, wife and daughter contract, and therefore can be enforced only of one John Peterson, an employee of the in admiralty; but, as late as this term, in Pacific company, sought recovery for the alGraham & M. Transp. Co. v. Craig Ship- leged negligent killing of said John Peterbuilding Co., this contention was overruled son while engaged as an engineer in its emupon the authority of the previous decisions ploy at Chickasha, in the Indian territory, of this court. 203 U. S. 577, 51 L. ed. - on October 19, 1903. It is charged in the 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 777.
petition that the Pacific company was then The judgments of the Supreme Court of engaged in carrying on its business in the Michigan are affirmed.
state of Texas in the name and through the Chicago, Rock Island, & Gulf Railroad, a corporation of the state of Texas, which latter corporation, it was alleged, was an
auxiliary corporation and agent of the deAUGUSTA A. PETERSON and Ida Peter- fendant, and was then and there dominated son, a Minor, Plffs, in Err.,
and controlled by it, its lines of railroad
being operated by the Pacific company as a CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND, & PACIFIC part of the Rock Island system. RAILROAD COMPANY.
It was charged that S. B. Hovey, vice
president and general manager of the Gulf Writ and process-service on foreign corpo- company, residing in Tarrant county, Texas, ration.
was also the general manager and local 1. The ownership by a foreign railway agent of the Pacific company in that state. company of a controlling interest in the It was also alleged that F. E. Merrell was stock of a domestic railway company which the local agent in Tarrant county, Texas, of retains its own officers, has property of its the Pacific company, and that M. E. Sebree own, and is responsible for its contracts and was the local agent for it in said county and to persons with whom it deals, does not
state. make the foreign corporation liable to serv
Service of citation was made on the deice of process within the state on the theory that it is doing business therein through the fendants by serving the parties above named agency of the domestic corporation.
as its agents in Tarrant county, Texas, in
The Writ and process—service on foreign corpo- pursuance of the statute of the state. ration.
defendant moved to quash the service on the 2. Service of process on an agent of a ground that none of the parties were such foreign corporation doing business within agents, and filed in support of its motion the state, in order to be valid, must be upon the affidavits of each, -Hovey, Merrell, and an agent representing the corporation with Sebree,—denying such agency. Thereafter respect to such business. *
plaintiffs made application for additional
process in pursuance of a later statute of [No. 225.]
the state of Texas, to be hereinafter noticed,
and charged that A. L. Thomas, who resides Argued and submitted March 6 and 7, 1907. in Tarrant county, Texas, was a train conDecided April 8, 1907.
ductor engaged in handling trains over the
tracks of the Gulf railroad in the state of T N ERROR to the Circuit Court of the Texas and over those of the Pacific railroad
United States for the Northern District beyond the limits of the state, and that he of Texas to review a judgment dismissing, senger trains on the tracks of both said
was engaged in running and handling pasfor want of jurisdiction, an action against companies on both sides of the state line, and a foreign corporation. Affirmed.
is an agent and representative of the de
fendant company, residing in Tarrant counStatement by Mr. Justice Day:
ty, Texas. It was further charged that V. This case comes here upon a certificate N. Turpin, who resides in Fort Worth, Tarfrom the circuit court of the United States rant county, Texas, was a ticket agent enfor the northern district of Texas, raising gaged in the selling of tickets and the makthe question of the jurisdiction of that court ing of contracts for transportation and for over an action brought by plaintiffs in error, and in behalf of the Pacific company Augusta A. Peterson and Ida Peterson, the from the city of Fort Worth, Texas, over *Ed. Note.-For cases in point, see vol. 12, Cent. Dig. Corporations, $8 2610-2615.
the lines of the Gulf company, in the state prise what is known as the 'Rock Island sys. of Texas, and over the line of the defendant tem.' company beyond the line of said state, and “As the Rock Island company is the own. was an agent and representative of the de- er of the entire capital stock, except directfendant company in said state and county. ors' shares, of the Chicago, Rock Island, &
These persons, Thomas and Turpin, were Pacific Railroad Company, the income of accordingly served under the application both the companies is included in the folfor new process as the agents and represen- lowing statement." tatives of the defendant company in the This report purports to be made by order said county and state.
of the board of directors, was dated October The defendant company filed a supple. 17, 1904, and was signed by Robert Mather, mental motion to quash this service upon president. Appended to this report, as a the grounds that these persons were not the part of it, under the head of "Statements agents or representatives of the defendant and Exhibits, Rock Island System Lines,' company, filing their affidavits in support of was the following statement, to wit: said motion. In the return of the writ "On page 23 of said report, under the served on Hovey it was also set forth that heading of 'Rock Island System-State of he was general manager of the Pacific com- Mileage Operated :' pany, residing in Tarrant county, Texas. The Chicago, Rock Island, & Gulf Railway The motion and supplemental motion to Company: quash the service was heard by the court, the Terral, I. T. (Red River), to Dallas, motion sustained, and the cause dismissed Texas
.. 126.67 for .want of jurisdiction, the court holding Bridgeport, Texas, to Graham, Texas 53.29 that the defendant had not been properly Texhoma, 0. T., to Bravo, Texas-New served with process.
Mexico state line
91.75 From the stipulated facts, documentary Texola, 0. T. (Texas state line), to evidence, and testimony embodied in the bill Amarillo, Texas
112.97 of exceptions, the following facts, pertinent to the determination of the issues, may be Total, Chicago, Rock Island, & Gulf gathered:
Railway Company ...
...386.68" The Pacific company and the Gulf com- Plaintiff also introduced in evidence a pany are both of the "Rock Island system" railroad folder, dated July 10, 1904, on of railroads. The second annual report of which was printed in large letters, “Rock the “Rock Island company” (June 30, 1904) Island System Time-table,” in which apshows that it is the owner of the entire capi-pears the names of the Chicago, Rock tal stock, except directors' shares, of the Island, & Pacific Railway Company, ChiChicago, Rock Island, & Pacific Railroadcago, Rock Island, & El Paso Railway Company, a corporation of Iowa ; that com Company, and the Chicago, Rock Island, & pany owns 695,574.75 shares of the capital Gulf Railway Company, with a list of the stock of the Chicago, Rock Island, & Pacific names and residences of the passenger and Railway Company, a corporation of the freight agents, and a schedule of the passtates of Illinois and Iowa, and 286,349 senger trains on said lines. On the inside shares of the common capital stock of the of the cover of the folder is a map showing St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Com the lines of the said railroad company, so pany, a corporation of the state of Missouri, connected as to belong to one system. Beand the report adds:
low the map is printed: “Each of the two latter companies oper- “The Rock Island System of America. ates independently its lines of railway and “The Rock Island system covers a terri. each is interested through the ownership, tory which is 1,000 miles long by 1,000 miles directly or indirectly, of at least the ma- wide, supports a population of more than jority of the capital stock in certain sub- 21,000,000 people, and is capable of supsidiary companies, each of which operates porting at least four times that many. The its property independently. The lines of the area of this territory is as great as the Chicago, Rock Island, & Pacific Railway combined area of France, Germany, Italy, Company, including lines formerly of the Spain, Austria-Hungary, Denmark, the Choctaw, Oklahoma, & Gulf Railroad Com - Netherlands, Turkey, Switzerland, and pany, the Burlington, Cedar Rapids, & Greece, and its productive capacity is greatNorthern Railway Company, and the Rocker. Island, & Peoria Railway Company, together “Here are produced more than half the with the lines of its subsidiary companies, wheat, more than half the corn, and nearly namely, the Chicago, Rock Island, & Gulf half the cotton, silver, and gold produced in Railway Company, and the Chicago, Rock the United States." Island, & El Paso Railway Company, com- The origin of the Gulf company is thus