Finney, Lee & Co. v. Steamboat Fayette
Supreme Court of Missouri
ERROR to St. Louis Court of Common,-Pleas. 1. The demand of the plaintiffs in error was a lien on the boat by the laws of this State. See Acts of 1839, p. 13; and as such, went with her as part and parcel of her wherever she might go; so that the title set up by the defendant’s pleas was still encumbered with the lien in the hands ol' Alexander, the purchaser.
Read the full summary
ERROR to St. Louis Court of Common,-Pleas. 1. The demand of the plaintiffs in error was a lien on the boat by the laws of this State. See Acts of 1839, p. 13; and as such, went with her as part and parcel of her wherever she might go; so that the title set up by the defendant’s pleas was still encumbered with the lien in the hands ol' Alexander, the purchaser. Story’s Conflict of Laws, p. 268, sec. 322, b. 2. The pleas do not state that the demand, on which the boat was sold in Illinois, was a lien on the boat by the laws of that State, but that it was only entitled to priority; so that, if…
1Opinion of the CourtScott, J.
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…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Oregon Steam Navigation Co. v. City of PortlandOregon Supreme Court · 1863
3Cited by2 opinions
- Ritter v. Steamboat JamestownSupreme Court of Missouri · 1856
- Phegley v. Steamboat David TatumSupreme Court of Missouri · 1863