Todd v. Bark Tulchen
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
In Admiralty. Exceptions to answers and motion for decree pro confesso» This was a libel by James H. Todd against the bark Tulchen in rem filed September 26, 1879, setting forth that while the vessel was lying at a wharf on the Delaware river at Philadelphia her master employed a firm of ship carpenters to line the vessel for grain who in turn employed libellant as a journeyman to assist in the work.
Read the full summary
In Admiralty. Exceptions to answers and motion for decree pro confesso» This was a libel by James H. Todd against the bark Tulchen in rem filed September 26, 1879, setting forth that while the vessel was lying at a wharf on the Delaware river at Philadelphia her master employed a firm of ship carpenters to line the vessel for grain who in turn employed libellant as a journeyman to assist in the work. That while libellant was on board the vessel engaged in the work the master without libellant’s knowledge or consent took the vessel away from the wharf and proceeded down the Delaware…
1Opinion of the Court
Butler, D. J.
Taking the libellant’s case as stated by himself, as we must, is he entitled to the remedy invoked ?
Of the jurisdiction of the court I entertain no doubt whatever. The right to proceed in rem is not so clear. A careful examination of the subject in the light of the authorities, has however, satisfied me that the libellant is entitled to this remedy. He was lawfully on the vessel, at the instance of the master, and for her benefit. It is unimportant that the contract to repair was not directly with him; he was there in pursuance of it. It was therefore his right to have the vessel…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Dexter v. MunroeDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1861
- Harding v. The MaverickDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1842
- United States v. Four Part Pieces of Woollen ClothU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York · 1825
3Cited by1 opinion
- The Fred M. LawrenceCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1899