Britton v. The Venture

21 F. 928
CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
DecidedOctober 15, 1884
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 21 F. 928 (Britton v. The Venture) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Britton v. The Venture, 21 F. 928 (W.D. Pa. 1884).

Opinion

Acheson, J,

It appears by the admissions now of record, and from the copy furnished the court, that the instrument of January 17, 1883, recited in the libel, is nothing more than a mortgage of five-sixteenths of the steam tow-boat Venture, to secure the payment of certain promissory notes given for purchase money due the mortgagees upon a sale by them to the mortgagors of shares in the boat. Now it is settled that such mortgage is not a maritime contract, and that a court of admiralty will neither decree a foreclosure thereof nor enforce the right of the mortgagee to possession under it, Bogart v. The John Jay, 17 How. 399; Schuchardt v. Ship Angelique, 19 How. 239; The Lottawanna, 21 Wall. 588. These cases are decisive against the jurisdiction of the court over the controversy here, even did the authorities cited by the libelant’s counsel hold a contrary doctrine. But they do not. Bor example, in the case of The Martha Washington, 1 Cliff. 463, there had been a decree of foreclosure, and the absolute title had become vested in the libelant before suit brought. * • -■

The motion to dismiss the libel for want of jurisdiction must be allowed. Let such decree be drawn.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Detroit Trust Co. v. the Thomas Barlum
293 U.S. 21 (Supreme Court, 1934)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
21 F. 928, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/britton-v-the-venture-pawd-1884.