Finney, Lee & Co. v. Steamboat Fayette

10 Mo. 612
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedMarch 15, 1847
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 10 Mo. 612 (Finney, Lee & Co. v. Steamboat Fayette) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Finney, Lee & Co. v. Steamboat Fayette, 10 Mo. 612 (Mo. 1847).

Opinion

Scott, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

On the 2nd February, 1842, the plaintiffs in error commenced proceeding in the Court of Common Pleas of St. Louis county, against the steamboat Fayette, for the purpose of recovering a claim for supplies furnished said boat. The last item of the account bore date on the third November, 1841.

The defendant in error, by D. C. Alexander, representing himself as the owner of, said boat, filed two pleas to the plaintiffs’ demand, which being substantially the same, only one of them is copied. The 2nd plea was as follows:

“And for further plea in this behalf, the said David C. Alexander says, that the said plaintiffs ought not to have and maintain their aforesaid action against the above named defendant, because he says, that by an act of the Legislature of the State of Illinois, one of the United States of America, entitled “An act authorizing the seizure of boats and other vessels by attachment in certain cases,” it is provided, among other things, [615]*615that the wages of marinéis, boatmen and others, employed in the service of such boats and vessels as run upon the navigable waters within the jurisdiction of said State, shall have preference over all other debts due from the owners and proprietors, and shall be first paid; and it is also further provided by said act, that any person having a demand contracted for wages as a boatman, may have an attachment, to be issued by any justice of the peace having jurisdiction thereof, against such boat or vessel, in any county where such boat or vessel may be found., which said attachment may issue against such boat by name only, and shall authorize and direct the seizure and detention of the same, with the engine, machinery, sails, rigging, tackle, apparel and furniture. And the said Alexander saith that one George Thurston, to-wit: on the fourth-day of December, 1841, in the county of Tazewell and State of Illinois aforesaid, had a just and legal demand against said steamboat Fayette, which accrued on account of wages as a boatman on said steamboat Fayette, and that the demand of the said Thurston was within the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace in the said State of Illinois. And the said Thurs-ton, heretofore, to-wit: on the 4th day of December, 1841, at the county of Tazewell aforesaid, sued out an attachment from a justice of the peace, duly and legally commissioned and acting as a justice of the peace, within and for said county of Tazewell, against the said steamboat Fayette, and prosecuted said attachment suit to final judgment against said boat, and the same was by a legal order or execution of the said justice of the peace issued upon said judgment, sold by the constable of said Tazewell county, according to the laws of the State in such case made and pro-, vided. And the said Alexander became the legal purchaser thereof, and the same was delivered to him at such sale; all of which will more fully and at large appear by the record and proceedings in said justice’s court still remaining, and which are in the words and figures following, that is say: George Thurston vs. Steamboat Fayette; suit commenced by at-attachment, December 4th, 1841; debt $34 34, on a note for services or wages on board the said boat as watchman and deckhand.. Attachment issued on complaint in the following words, (to-wit:) State of Illinois, Tazewell county, ss. This day personally appeared before the undersigned, a justice of the peace in and for said county, George Thurston, who, after being duly sworn, deposed and saith, that the steamboat Fayette is indebted to him for wages while he was employed as boatman on board and in the service of said boat in the capacity of watchman and deck hand, in the sum of thirty-four dollars and thirty-four cents, and prays an attachment against [said boat.] Sworn to and subscribed before me, [616]*616this 4th day of December, 1841. Geore Thurston. [Seal.] Alden Hall, J. P. And after plaintiff entering into the following bond, to-wit: Know all men by these presents, that we, George Thurston and David C. Alexander, are held and firmly bound unto the people of the State of Illinois, for the use and benefit of the owners of the steamboat Fayette, who may-institute a suit hereon, in the penal sum of seventy-eight dollars and sixty-eight cents, for the payment of which we bind ourselves, our heirs and assigns, firmly by these presents. The conditions of this obligation is such, that whereas the above bound George Thurston hath, on the day of the date hereof, prayed an attachment at the suit of him, the said George Thurston, against the steamboat Fayette, for the sum of thirty-four dollars and thirty-four cents, lawful money of the United States, and and the same being about to be sued out, returnable on the eleventh day-of December instant, to me, at my office in Pekin, in the county of Tazewell and State of Illinois: now, if the said George Thurston shall prosecute his said suit with effect, or in case of failure therein, shall well and truly pay and satisfy the owner or owners of the said steamboat Fayette, all such costs in said suit and such damages as shall be awarded against, the said George Thurston, his heirs, executors or administrators, in such suit or suits which may hereafter be brought for wrongfully suing out such attachment, then the above obligation to be void; otherwise to remain in full force and virtue. George Thurston, [Seal] David C. Alexander, [Seal] Taken and acknowledged before me, this 4th day of December, 1841. Alden Hall, J. P.
“Attachment issued 4th day of December, 1841, delivered to John M. Turney, constable, returnable before me at my office, in Pekin, on the eleventh day of December, instant, at 1 o’clock P. M., in the following form, to wit: State of Illinois, Tazewell county, ss. The people of the State' of Illinois, to any constable of said county, greeting: Whereas, George Thurston hath complained on oath, before Alden Hall, a justice of the peace in and for said county, that the steamboat Fayette is justly indebted to him, the said George Thurston, in the sum of thirty-four dollars and thirty-four cents, for wages as a boatman, while he was employed on board of said boat in the capacity of watchman and deckhand, and the said George Thurston having given bond and security accord-ding to the directions of the act in such case made and provided: we therefore command you that you attach the said steamboat Fayette, if the said boat be found in your county, and detain the said boat with her engine, machinery, rigging, apparel and furniture; and the said boat, so attached in your hands, so to provide and secure, that the said boat with [617]*617her engine, machinery, rigging and furniture may be liable to further proceeding thereon according to law, before the undersigned justice of the peace, and make return to me of your proceedings, at my office in the town of Pekin, in said county, on the eleventh day of December instant, at 1 o’clock P. M., and have you then and there this writ, hereof fail not at your peril. Given under my hand and seal, this the 4th day of December, 1841. Alden Hall, J. P., [seal,] justice’s costs, ¡‘¡1 18. December 11th, 1841, attachment returned endorsed as follows, to wit: Served the within attachment on the 4th day of December, 1841, on the following property, to wit: The steamboat Fayette. John M. Turney, C. T. C., costs, ¿*1 00. The owners of said boat not present, and no notice having been given to them of the pending of said suit, the cause continued to the 27th inst., at 1 o’clock, P.

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

Related

Phegley v. Steamboat David Tatum
33 Mo. 461 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1863)
Ritter v. Steamboat Jamestown
23 Mo. 348 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1856)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
10 Mo. 612, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/finney-lee-co-v-steamboat-fayette-mo-1847.