{
  "id": 436577,
  "name": "Amos L. Merriman et al., Administrators, &c., Plaintiffs in Error, v. Canal Boat Col. Butts, Defendant in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Merriman v. Canal Boat Col. Butts",
  "decision_date": "1854-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "585",
  "last_page": "588",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "15 Ill. 585"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "6 Black. R. 148",
      "category": "reporters:scotus_early",
      "reporter": "Black",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "14 Ill. 361",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2584387
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/14/0361-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 433,
    "char_count": 7269,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.663,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.679677357637078e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4063850826824267
    },
    "sha256": "7916831d8353596e13b2b0788dc7cd4b281a95423a54093298b72f87fa7deb19",
    "simhash": "1:7ce393956ec7782a",
    "word_count": 1247
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:54:34.058491+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Amos L. Merriman et al., Administrators, &c., Plaintiffs in Error, v. Canal Boat Col. Butts, Defendant in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Scates, J.\nThe statute in relation to \u201c attachments of! boats and vessels,\u201d R. S. 45, p. 71, sec. 1, provides that boats and vessels of all descriptions, built, repaired, or equipped, or running upon any of the navigable waters within the jurisdiction of this State, shall be liable for all debts contracted by the owner, master, supercargo, or consignee, on account of \u201call work done, supplies or materials furnished by mechanics, tradesmen, and others, for, on account of, or towards the building, repairing, fitting, furnishing, or equipping such boats or vessels, their engines, machinery, sails, rigging, tackle, apparel, and furniture,\u201d and such debts have the preference of all other debts of the owner, except the wages of mariners, boatmen, and others employed in the service of such vessel, which shall first be paid.\nThe 2d section gives to any person \u201c having a demand, contracted as before mentioned,\u201d an attachment.\nThe 4th section gives the same remedy by attachment to \u201c all engineers, pilots, mariners, boatmen, and others employed in any capacity, in or about the service of any such boat or vessel,\u201d for \u201c arrearages of wages in consequence of such service.\u201d\nThe canal boat Col. Butts was, by contract, towed from Peoria to La Salle, by the steamer of plaintiffs\u2019 intestate, for which the owners of the Col. Butts were to pay $40.\nThe only question presented is, Whether an attachment for the debt will lie under this statute. We think not.\nThere is a manifest difference between the classes of creditors mentioned in the first and last clauses of the first section ; and this difference in the debts themselves, that wages due to those in the service of the boat or vessel have preference over the others.\nThe debts of the first clause can only arise from contracts with the \u201c owner or owners, masters, supercargo, or consignees,\u201d when made in relation to work done, supplies or materials for, on account of, or towards the building, repairing, fitting, furnishing, or equipping the vessels, their engines, machinery, sails, rigging, tackle, apparel, and furniture.\nIt is only in relation to these objects, and to such persons, and under such contracts, that the preference is given, and this new summary remedy by attachment under the second section. All other creditors are left to the ordinary remedies. The second section does not give this remedy to the doubly preferred class for \u201c wages.\u201d The fourth section gives this remedy by attachment to this class, and confines it to \u201c engineers, pilots, mariners, boatmen, and others.\u201d But\" not to all such persons for debts against the owners, on every or any account, but only for \u201c arrearages of wages \u201d due for employment \u201c in any capacity in or about the service of any such boat or vessel.\u201d This \"service \u201d of a boat or vessel, clearly means such employment, such \u201c capacity,\u201d as raises the relation of master and servant, and brings the employees under the government, direction, and control of the owner in and about the boat; I should think, strictly a hiring of personal service in and about the boat, and whose dues are denominated \u201c wages.\u201d Such are officers and crew. If this contract of towage put the owner of the steamer into the employment and \u201c service \u201d of the Col. Butts, and under this relation to its owner, I see no reason why the engineers, pilots, mariners, boatmen, and officers of the steamer were not in like manner put into the same \u201c service \u201d and relation, by actually towing her. And if so, each could attach for his wages earned during the trip. For if this debt is included in the class to which this remedy is extended, it is not because of the contract, but from the character of the services rendered. By towing her, they are \u201c employed in \u201d the \u201c capacity \u201d of \u201c engineers, pilots, mariners, boatmen, and others,\u201d \u201c in and about the service of the boat \u201d towed, and as such, have this remedy for their wages; otherwise they have not, neither has their employer, the owner of the steamer, although he might in person have assisted in this voyage.\nThis is a new and extraordinary remedy, and however beneficial its provisions might be to other classes of creditors, we have no right or power to extend it by construction. Such is its exposition in other States, affording safe precedents for our guidance.\nIt was denied in Johnson v. The Steamboat Sandusky, 5 Wend. R. 510, hr an action brought for wood as fuel; and for the reason that the statute gave it only for supplies which enter into the construction of the vessel. See Clark v. Smith, 14 Ill. 361. Afterwards the provision was enlarged, and the plaintiff was allowed to recover for wood furnished for consumption. Crooke & Fowke v. Slack et al. 20 Wend. R. 177. But it was denied a sub-contractor who furnished materials and performed labor on a vessel at the request of the builder, because the statute provided it only in favor of those who had contracts with the \u201cmaster, owner, agent, or consignee.\u201d Hubbell v. Denison & Buckley, 20 Wend. R. 181. And a similar decision upon the mechanics\u2019 lien law in McDermott v. Palmer, 11 Barb. S. C. R. 9.\nIn Indiana the same construction is given, and the lien confined to the contractor, and withheld from laborers under him, who were not provided for in the statute. Southwick v. The Packet-boat Clyde, 6 Black. R. 148.\nThe same construction is adopted in Missouri, Iowa, and Arkansas. 11 Mo. R. 112; 12 Ib. 371; 14 Ib. 532. See also 16 Ib. 266; 1 Greene, R. 398; 5 Eng. R. 411. So strict is the latter, that a lender of money to pay off a lien debt will not be subrogated to the lien. 5 Eng. R. 411. The court in Missouri delivered a doctrine the other way. 12 Mo. R. 371.\nOhio is the only State holding a less strict construction. In Webster v. The Brig Andes, they extended the remedy to subcontractors .and day-laborers. 18 Ohio R. 187. We think the dissenting opinion of C. J. Hitchcock in that case, more conformable to the rule adopted in the current of authorities on this point.\nJudgment affirmed,.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Scates, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Manning & Merriman, for plaintiffs in error.",
      "E. N. Powell, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Amos L. Merriman et al., Administrators, &c., Plaintiffs in Error, v. Canal Boat Col. Butts, Defendant in Error.\nERROR TO PEORIA.\nAn attachment, under chapter ten of the Revised Statutes, will not lie for towing a canal boat.\nThe bill of exceptions in this case shows, that in November, 1851, the steamer Governor Briggs, running on the Illinois River between Peoria and La Salle, belonging to Luke Woods, the plaintiffs\u2019 intestate, towed the canal boat \u201c Col. Butts,\u201d from Peoria to La Salle; that there was no price agreed upon for the towing; but the usual and fair price was $40; that before the towing commenced, the owner of the canal boat and his son, asked witness how much he would charge for towing, &e.; that he answered $40; no reply was made; that the Briggs then towed the canal boat safely to La Salle.\nThe circuit court of Peoria county, at December term, 1853,\nPeters, Judge, presiding, held that this was not a case within the provision of the statute authorizing attachments against boats, &c. This objection was taken and insisted upon at the trial before the justice of the peace. This action was originally commenced before a justice of the peace.\nManning & Merriman, for plaintiffs in error.\nE. N. Powell, for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0585-01",
  "first_page_order": 597,
  "last_page_order": 600
}