Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
Minturn v. Maynard
Minturn v. Maynard, 58 U.S. (17 How.) 477 (1855)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1855-03-10
- Topic
- general
How later courts describe this case
- action by general agent or broker to recover accounts due for advances and commissions on disbursements did not involve maritime contract
Citator
Minturn v. Maynard is no longer good law, at least in part: overruled by Exxon Corp. v. Central Gulf Lines, Inc. (1991). 69 later decisions cite it, 1 of them negatively.
- Authority status
- negative
- Cited by
- 69 opinions
- Negative treatment
- 1 citing opinion
Headnotes
- Admiralty & Maritime Law — Jurisdiction — Contracts A suit by an agent against a principal for a balance of accounts due for money advanced and paid for the principal's use, including payment of bills for a steamboat's supplies, repairs, and advertising, is not a maritime contract and does not fall within admiralty jurisdiction; the proper remedy is an action of assumpsit in a court of common law.
- Admiralty & Maritime Law — Jurisdiction — Contracts The circumstance that money advanced and paid on behalf of a principal was used, in whole or in part, to pay a steamboat's bills for repairs or supplies does not render the transaction maritime or give the agent a remedy in admiralty.
- Admiralty & Maritime Law — Jurisdiction — Local Law A local law authorizing the attachment of vessels for supplies or repairs does not extend to a balance of accounts between an agent and a principal who have never dealt on the credit, pledge, or security of the vessel.
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.