The Steamboat Sultana v. Chapman
Wisconsin Supreme Court
The plaintiff below filed Ms complaint under the provisions of chapter 116, Revised Statutes of Wisconsin, commonly known as the “boat and vessel act,” setting forth among other things, that on or about the 10th of October, 1853, the plaintiff, shipped on the steamboat Sultana, then in Buffalo, in the state of New York, certain goods therein described; that-the steamboat was then and there used and occupied in the business of common carriers to and from the city of Buffalo,…
Read the full summary
The plaintiff below filed Ms complaint under the provisions of chapter 116, Revised Statutes of Wisconsin, commonly known as the “boat and vessel act,” setting forth among other things, that on or about the 10th of October, 1853, the plaintiff, shipped on the steamboat Sultana, then in Buffalo, in the state of New York, certain goods therein described; that-the steamboat was then and there used and occupied in the business of common carriers to and from the city of Buffalo, and to _ and from the city of Milwaukee; and that the master, in consideration of payments, &c., undertook and promised…
1Opinion of the Court
"By the Court,
Cole, J.
' This is a'complaint filed under' the provisions of chapter 116,'R. S.; for damages -accruing from the non-performance or mal-performance of a contract of affreight-nient. The question of jurisdiction which was raised in the case, is the one which naturally first’presents itself for our consideration.
*463It was objected in the court below-, by the.: plaintiff in error, that this statute was intended only to apply to domestic vessels, or those chiefly used upon the waters of this state, and did -not extend to boats which, like the Sultana, were used in navigating the lakes…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Faulkner v. . HartNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
- Schaller v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1897
- Richmond v. . Union Steamboat Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1881
- Pittsburgh, Cincinnati & St. Louis Railway Co. v. BarrettOhio Supreme Court · 1881