Page:United States Reports, Volume 60.djvu/72

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
56
SUPREME COURT

Ure v. Coffman et al.


far as they would go, when the money was received by them. The fact that the claim now in question was secured by a lien on the Laura, can surely be no reason for applying the money in the first place to discharge it. On the contrary, it would be a sufficient reason against such an application, and would be a good ground for postponing it until all the claims for which the creditor had no security were first satisfied.

I do not comprehend how the argument that it is the first item in the account can apply. In point of fact, however, it is not the first or oldest item in the account, as I understand the transaction. And, if the lien on the vessel was originally valid, it is evident that it has never been discharged, or waived, or forfeited by unreasonable delay.

Some other items for necessaries furnished at Peyta, on the last voyage of the Laura to that port, and also a small charge for bread at Valparaiso, and which are not included in the account signed by Leach, were allowed by the Circuit Court, and are included in the amount decreed. These items, the counsel for the respondents insist, ought not to be allowed, even if those in the account are sustained. I think, when the whole testimony is examined, it will be evident that these charges stand on the same principles with those of which I have already spoken. But I forbear to extend this opinion by discussing that question; because, as the court have determined that the repairs and supplies furnished, at the request of Leach, are not a lien on the vessel, it is useless to examine particular items, when the opinion of the court goes to the whole.

From that opinion I respectfully dissent. And, after carefully reviewing the case in all of its bearings, and scrutinizing the evidence, I adhere to the opinion I held in the Circuit Court.


James H. Ure, Claimant of the Steamer Gipsey, Appellant, v. James M. Coffman and Cyrus Coffman, Owners of Flat-boat and Cargo.
Where a flat-boat, which was fastened to the bank of the Mississippi river at night, was run down and sunk by a steamer, the circumstances show that the steamer was in fault, and must be responsible for the loss.

It was not necessary for the flat-boat, in the position which it occupied, to show a light during the night.

When a boat or vessel of any kind is fastened for the night at a landing place to which other boats may have occasion to make a landing in the night, it is certainly prudent for her position to be designated by a light, on her own account,