Noble v. Steamboat "St. Anthony"
Supreme Court of Missouri
ERROR TO ST. LOUIS COURT OF COMMON PLEAS The only question presented in the case is, whether the defendants demurrer to (he plaintiff’s amended complaint, was properly sustained. The cause of action set forth in the complaint is essentially different from that in the case of Raritan vs. Pollard, 10 Bio.
Read the full summary
ERROR TO ST. LOUIS COURT OF COMMON PLEAS The only question presented in the case is, whether the defendants demurrer to (he plaintiff’s amended complaint, was properly sustained. The cause of action set forth in the complaint is essentially different from that in the case of Raritan vs. Pollard, 10 Bio. R, 683; and fairly presents the queslion whether our statutory lien is strictly to be confined, in all cases, to causes of action arising within the territorial limits of this State. In this case, the complainant alleges that at the time the articles were furnished, the boat had just been…
1Opinion of the Court
Napton, judge,
delivered the opinion of the court.
This was a proceeding under the act concerning boats and vessels. The grounds of the action, as stated in the complaint, were the furniture and equipment of a steamboat, procured at Pittsburgh, in the State *263of Pennsylvania. An allegation was made in the complaint that by the law of Pennsylvania, the plaintiff was entitled to a lien for the articles so furnished. There was a demurrer to the complaint, which was determined in favor of the boat, and this decision presents the only point for our consideration.
We understand our statute to have no…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Genest v. Las Vegas Masonic Building Ass'nNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1902
- Haight & Bro. v. Steamboat HenriettaSupreme Court of Iowa · 1857
- James v. The Steamboat PawneeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1854
- Harris v. The HenriettaDistrict Court, D. Missouri · 1856