Paul v. The Ilex

18 F. Cas. 1346, 2 Woods 229
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Louisiana
DecidedApril 15, 1876
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 18 F. Cas. 1346 (Paul v. The Ilex) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Paul v. The Ilex, 18 F. Cas. 1346, 2 Woods 229 (circtdla 1876).

Opinion

BRADLEY, Circuit Justice.

This is a libel in rem against a foreign ship, bound on a foreign voyage, for services as stevedore In loading timber on the ship. A stevedore has never been held to have a claim against the ship itself for his services; on the contrary, the claim has been uniformly rejected. Judge Betts, in Cox v. Murray [Case No. 3,304], undertakes to explain why the loading of á ship with cargo preparatory to a voyage, is not a maritime service, whilst the furnishing of repairs and supplies preparatory to such voyage is a maritime service. He seems to think that the maritime quality arises’ only when the matters performed or entered upon pertain to the fitment of the vessel for navigation, aid and relief supplied her in preparing for and conducting a voyage, or the freighting or employment of her as the instrument of a voyage; but that services only incidentally benefiting a voyage have not this quality. Judge Lowell thinks this not a very satisfactory explanation, because a ship cannot be used to advantage without a cargo any more than without repairs and supplies. As, however, the precedents are all one way, I do not feel at liberty in this court to disregard them, and the views expressed by Mr. Justice Grier, in McDermott v. The Owens [Id. 8,748] are so clear and forcible, that I am not certain that I should come to a different conclusion if the question were a new one. He says: “The stevedores are usually employed by the owner, consignee, or master, on their personal credit; the service performed is in no sense maritime, being completed before the voyage is begun, or after it is ended, and they are no more entitled to a lien on the vessel than the draymen and other laborers who perform services in loading and discharging vessels.” The decree of the district court is affirmed.

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

Related

The Anaces
87 F. 565 (E.D. North Carolina, 1898)
Dennett v. The Main
51 F. 954 (Fifth Circuit, 1892)
Danace v. The Magnolia
37 F. 367 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Louisiana, 1889)
Mygatt v. Knapp
37 F. 209 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1889)
Revere Copper Co. v. The Augustine Kobbe
37 F. 696 (S.D. Alabama, 1888)
Carmona v. The Esteban de Antunano
31 F. 920 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Louisiana, 1887)
Union Cotton Compress Co. v. The Wivanhoe
26 F. 927 (E.D. Virginia, 1886)
The Ole Oleson
20 F. 384 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1884)
The Canada
7 F. 119 (D. Oregon, 1881)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
18 F. Cas. 1346, 2 Woods 229, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paul-v-the-ilex-circtdla-1876.