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
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion
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.
-
(action by general agent or broker to recover accounts due for advances and commissions on disbursements did not involve maritime contract)
Cited by 63 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Exxon Corp. v. Central Gulf Lines, Inc.
- Peralta Shipping Corp. v. Smith & Johnson (Shipping) Corp.
- Fernandez v. Haynie
- Peralta Shipping Corporation v. Smith & Johnson (Shipping) Corp.
- United Transportation & Lighterage Co. v. New York & Baltimore Transp. Line
- Garcia & Diaz, Inc. v. Empresa Naviera De Cuba, S. A.
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.