Swearingen v. Steamboat Lynx

Boats and Vessels — Mississippi River — Statute Construed. — 'TheMississippiriver, from the northern to the southern boundary of the State of Missouri, is one of the waters of the State referred to in the statute concerning Boats and Vessels.

EBROR TO ST. LOUIS CIRCUIT COURT. This was a demand under the statute. The plaintiffs alleged that they were owners of the steamboat Ohio, and that on the 5th day of April, 1845, as the steamboat Ohio was ascending the Mississippi riyer, and had got nearly opposite Grafton, a town in Illinois, on said river, the steamboat Lynx was through the carelessness, remissness and negligence of her officers and crew, propelled against the steamboat Ohio, which last mentioned boat was thereby damaged to the amount of three hundred and twenty-five dollars. The general issue-was pleaded. At the trial the plaintiffs after proving their ownership o.f'the steamboat Ohio, offered and gave evidence tending to prove that the' collision had occasioned damages to the amount of two hundred and fifty dollars to the steamboat Ohio, and that the collision was produced by the bad conduct of the officers and crew of the Lynx, the officers and crew of the steamboat -Ohio being free from blame. The defendants offered evidence tending to prove that the collision was attributable to the bad conduct of the officers and crew of the steamboat Ohio,'and that the officers and crew of the Lynx were, free from blame. The defendant asked and the court gave the following- instructions. 1st. The plaintiffs cannot recover in this action, without proving to the satisfaction of the jury that the injury complained of was done in the State of Missouri. 2nd. Unless the jury find from the testimony that the steamboat Lynx at the time of the injury complained of, was a boat used in the navigation of the waters of this State, they ought to find their verdict for the defendant. 3rd. The jury ought to find a verdict for the defendant, unless they find from the evidence that the collision between the two boats was occasioned by the negligence or misconduct of ¿he persons in charge of the Lynx, and not to the negligence or misconduct of the persons in charge of the Ohio. To the giving of which instructions the plaintiffs excepted at the time. The court of its own motion gave the following instruction, viz : “The river Mississippi from the northern boundary of the State of Missouri to the southern boundary of the State of Missouri, and to the middle of the main channel thereof is one of the waters of this State, within the act concerning Boats and Vessels.” To the giving of which the plaintiffs at the time excepted. The plaintiffs asked the following instruction, to-wit: “The river Mississippi from the northern boundary of the State of Missouri to the southern boundary of the State of Missouri is one of the waters of the State referred to in the act concerning Boats and Vessels.” Which the court refused, and plaintiffs excepted. The verdict was for defendant. The plaintiffs moved for a new trial, assigning for cause the error of the court in giving and refusing instructions, and the court overruling the motion, they excepted and filed their bill of exceptions. 1. The State of Missouri has concurrent jurisdiction with all conterminous sovereignties over all rivers' bordering on the State so far as such rivers form a common boundary to the State of Missouri and any other State. Art. 10 of State Constitution, § 2. -2. The river Mississippi is one of the waters of this State from bank to bank, so far as it is a boundary between the State of Missouri and other States of the Union! 3. The extreme inconvenience of the rule indicated in the instructions of the court and the difficulty of ascertaining either by night or day whether a collision occurred to the west or east of a perpetually shifting line, would of themselves be conclusive against the adoption of the rule. It is a rule of law that no statute shall be so construed as to produce absurd or inconvenient consequences. 1 T. Coke, 19 and following; D warris on Statutes, 756 (side-paging), Law Library, 70. 1. The proceeding against a steamboat under our statute can only be maintained for a cause of action arising within this State. Noble v. Steamer St. Anthony, 12 Mo. R. 262 ; Steamboat Raritan v. Pollard, 10 Mo. R. 583. 2. The State of Missouri has jurisdiction, and the laws of the State have their operation only to the middle of the main channel of the Mississippi river. Missouri Constitution, art. 1.