The William M. Hoag

Supreme Court

The William M. Hoag

168 U.S. 443, 18 S. Ct. 114, 42 L. Ed. 537, 1897 U.S. LEXIS 1737

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedDecember 6, 1897

DocketNos. 137 and 138

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 168 U.S. 443 (The William M. Hoag) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

The William M. Hoag, 168 U.S. 443, 18 S. Ct. 114, 42 L. Ed. 537, 1897 U.S. LEXIS 1737 (1897).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Brown

delivered the opinion of the court.

These cases differ from those already disposed of ante, 437, only in the fact that the libels contain claims by the masters of those vessels,with an averment that during the time they ivere employed there was an officer known as the purser; that the agents of the receiver and the purser collected and received, all *444 the earnings from the vessels from both passengers and freight, and paid over such earnings in the ordinary course of business to the receiver; that none of the earnings of the vessels passed through the hands of the masters, and that their sole duties consisted in navigating the steamers upon routes selected by the receiver within the State of Oregon, and that all the supplies and materials were purchased by the said receiver through other agents and servants. This allegation is evidently designed to raise the question whether the ancient doctrine enforced upon the court of admiralty by prohibition from Westminster Hall, that the master has no lien for his wages, and which was declared to be the law by this court in the case of The Orleans, 11 Pet. 175, has any application to modern methods, where a purser or other, agent is employed by the owner to collect the freights and pay the bills of the vessel, the practice formerly being for the master to receive all the freight, pay the crew and buy the supplies. The denial of the lien of the master was based upon the theory that he had a lien upon the freight for his wages, and having the freight in his own hands was presumed to pay himself. The argument is made that, the reason for the rule having ceased to exist, the rule itself, which denied the master a lien upon the vessel, has become obsolete.

A lien was also claimed and admitted on behalf of the masters under a local statute of Oregon; but it was also insisted in defence thereto that the masters had not proceeded within the time allowed by law for the enforcement.of such claim.

The latter question, at least, if not the former, did not affect the jurisdiction of the court, but went to the merits alone.

The decrees of the court below in these cases are also, in respect to jurisdiction,

' Affirmed.

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

Mr. Justice Brown

delivered the opinion of the court.

These cases differ from those already disposed of ante, 437, only in the fact that the libels contain claims by the masters of those vessels,with an averment that during the time they ivere employed there was an officer known as the purser; that the agents of the receiver and the purser collected and received, all *444 the earnings from the vessels from both passengers and freight, and paid over such earnings in the ordinary course of business to the receiver; that none of the earnings of the vessels passed through the hands of the masters, and that their sole duties consisted in navigating the steamers upon routes selected by the receiver within the State of Oregon, and that all the supplies and materials were purchased by the said receiver through other agents and servants. This allegation is evidently designed to raise the question whether the ancient doctrine enforced upon the court of admiralty by prohibition from Westminster Hall, that the master has no lien for his wages, and which was declared to be the law by this court in the case of The Orleans, 11 Pet. 175, has any application to modern methods, where a purser or other, agent is employed by the owner to collect the freights and pay the bills of the vessel, the practice formerly being for the master to receive all the freight, pay the crew and buy the supplies. The denial of the lien of the master was based upon the theory that he had a lien upon the freight for his wages, and having the freight in his own hands was presumed to pay himself. The argument is made that, the reason for the rule having ceased to exist, the rule itself, which denied the master a lien upon the vessel, has become obsolete.

A lien was also claimed and admitted on behalf of the masters under a local statute of Oregon; but it was also insisted in defence thereto that the masters had not proceeded within the time allowed by law for the enforcement.of such claim.

The latter question, at least, if not the former, did not affect the jurisdiction of the court, but went to the merits alone.

The decrees of the court below in these cases are also, in respect to jurisdiction,

' Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 U.S. 443, 18 S. Ct. 114, 42 L. Ed. 537, 1897 U.S. LEXIS 1737, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-william-m-hoag-scotus-1897.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack