TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Minturn v. Maynard

Charles Minturn, Appellant, v. Lafayette Maynard, Gilbert A. Grant, Thomas G. Wells, Lucien Skinner, Frederick Billings, Charles J. Brenham, Isaac T. Mott, J. De La Montagne, E. M. Neal, and Thomas L. Chapman

Minturn v. Maynard, 58 U.S. (17 How.) 477 (1855)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
March 10, 1855
Judges
Grier
Citations
58 U.S. 47715 L. Ed. 23517 How. 4771854 U.S. LEXIS 537
Headnotes
Where a libel was filed in personam, against the owners of a steamboat in California, by their general agent or broker, for the balance of an account for money paid, laid out, and expended, in paying for supplies, repairs, and advertising of. the steamboat, together with commissions on the disbursements, the libel was properly dismissed, for want of jurisdiction. There was nothing in the ease to bring.it within the class of maritime contracts; nor does the local law of California, which authorizes an attachment of vessels for supplies or repairs, extend to the balance of accounts between agent and principal, who have never dealt on the credit, pledge, or security of the vessel.
Summary
This was an appeal from the district court of the United States for the northern district of California. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion — Grier

Mr. Justice GRIER, delivered the opinion of the. court.

The respondents were sued in admiralty, by process in personam.

The libel charges that they are owners of the steamboat Gold Hunter ; that they had appointed the libellant their general agent or broker; and exhibits a bill, showing a balance of accounts due libellant for money paid, laid out, and expended for the use of respondents, in paying for supplies, repairs, and advertising of the steamboat, and numerous other charges, together with commissions on the disbursements, &c.

The court below very properly dismissed"the libel, for want of jurisdiction. There is nothing in the nature of a maritime contract in the case. The libel shows nothing but a demand for a balance of accounts between agent and principal, for which an action of assumpsit, in a common law court, is the proper remedy. That the money advanced and paid for respondents was, in whole or in part,, to pay bills due by a steamboat for repairs or supplies, will not make the transaction maritime, or give the libellant a remedy in admiralty. Nor does the local law of California, which authorizes an attachment of vessels for supplies or repairs, extend to the balance of accounts between agent and principal, who have never dealt on the credit, pledge, or security of the vessel.

The case is too plain for argument.

The judgment of the court of admiralty, dismissing the libel for want of jurisdiction, is affirmed with costs.

*478 Order.

This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the district court of the United States for the northern district of California, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof it is now here ordered, adjudged, and decreed by this court, that the decree of the said district court in this cause be, and the same is hereby affirmed, with costs.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 63 cases

View all citing references →
1883–1884: 11885–1886: 11887–1888: 11889–1890: 21891–1892: 11907–1908: 21911–1912: 11921–1922: 21923–1924: 11925–1926: 21927–1928: 11931–1932: 21935–1936: 21937–1938: 11943–1944: 11945–1946: 11947–1948: 21949–1950: 11951–1952: 11955–1956: 21957–1958: 11961–1962: 11963–1964: 11971–1972: 31973–1974: 11979–1980: 11983–1984: 11985–1986: 11987–1988: 51989–1990: 31991–1992: 51993–1994: 11997–1998: 21999–2000: 22005–2006: 12007–2008: 22011–2012: 12013–2014: 12021–2022: 12023–2024: 118832026peak 1987 · 5

Most recent

  1. YS GM Marfin II LLC v. Four Wood Capital Advisors, LLCNo. 1:20-cv-03320 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2023)
  2. Doe v. United StatesNo. 20-559 (U.S. May 3, 2021)
  3. Fireman's Fund Insurance v. Great American Insurance10 F. Supp. 3d 460 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)
  4. Baltimore Line Handling Co. v. Brophy771 F. Supp. 2d 531 (D. Maryland 2011)
  5. Penguin Maritime Ltd. v. Lee & Muirhead Ltd.588 F. Supp. 2d 522 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)
  6. Wilhelmsen Premier Marine Fuels AS v. UBS Provedores Pty Ltd.519 F. Supp. 2d 399 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list