Southern Log Cart & Supply Co. v. Lawrence
Southern Log Cart & Supply Co. v. Lawrence, 86 F. 907 (5th Cir. 1898)
Headnotes
1. Maritime Liens — Admiralty Jurisdiction.
A. flatbcat, with a iiile driver and its engine erected thereon, which fe' mainly used in constructing bulkheads for the erection of channel lights, and which is also employed in transporting materials nsed in ihe work (being towed by a tug for tills purpose), is to bo classed as a “vessel” within the maritime jurisdiction, and subject to maritime liens.
2. Same — Seamen’s Wages.
Persons employed upon such a boat, who assist in moving her about, and who also work the pile driver and are engaged in constructing the bulkhead, are to he regarded as rendering maritime services, so as to give them alien on the vessel for their wages.
Summary
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Alabama.
This was a libel in rem by Millard T. Lawrence and others against an unnamed ilatboat or pile driver of which the Southern Log Cart & Supply Company were claimants, to recover a balance of wages due for services rendered on the said boat. The district court held that the boat was a “vessel” capable of becoming the subject of &■ maritime lien, and that the services rendered by the libelants were maritime services, and accordingly rendered a decree in their favor. The opinion of the district judge, which contains a full statement of the facts, is reported in 84 Fed. 200.
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
PER CURIAM.
For the reasons given by the learned district judge, and found in the transcript, the decree appealed from is affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.