1. A writ of error or appeal to this Court cannot be sustained
in the name of a steamboat or any other than a human being or some
corporate or associated aggregation of persons.
2. The acts of the state legislatures authorizing suits to be
sustained by or against steamboats by name confer no right so to
sustain them in the federal courts.
3. Any person, however, who in the state courts has
substantially made himself a party to the case by asserting on the
record his interest in the vessel and conducting the defense in the
highest court of the state may prosecute a writ of error in his own
name in this Court under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act.
These were two cases brought before the Court by what purported
to be writs of error to the Supreme Court of Missouri. The writ in
the first case referred to a judgment in
Page 76 U. S. 238
that court in a suit "between the steamboat
Burns, her
tackle &c., appellant, and James Reynolds and James Aiken,
respondents and appellees," in which "a manifest error hath
happened, to the great damage of the said
steamboat, her tackle
&c., as by
her complaint appears." The citation
made the same recital. The writ and citation in the second case
varied from this only in the names of the defendants in error.
This form of the writ was endeavored to be justified by a
statute of Missouri known in that state as the Boat Law, a statute
which it was said sought to establish in the state court the plan
and procedure of the admiralty. By this act, proceeding was
authorized against the
res, and the vessel was a good deal
treated of by the language of the act as the defendant in the case.
However, one section of the act (section 12), provided that the
owner, captain, agent, consignee, or any creditor of the
boat might appear to the action on behalf of the boat or
vessel and plead thereto and defend the same, and another section,
the 38th, that the
captain, agent, owner, consignee, or other
person interested in the boat or vessel might
appeal or
prosecute a writ of error to reverse any judgment rendered against
the boat or vessel. And indeed in this very case the record
showed that one Adolph Keinecke had made claim in the inferior
court as owner, and as such had defended the suit in the name of
the steamboat. He had likewise made affidavit that he was the
owner, and gave bond to enable him to appeal to the supreme court
of the state. But instead of taking the appeal in his own name, he
took it in the name of the steamboat.
The question now was whether these writs could be sustained.
MR. JUSTICE MILLER delivered the opinion of the Court.
It is believed to be the first time that anything but a human
being or an aggregation of human beings called a corporation or
association has attempted to bring a writ of error or appeal in
this Court.
Page 76 U. S. 239
It is said in support of the writ that the proceeding below was
in rem against the steamboat by name, and that as it was
so conducted through all the state courts, it should be so
here.
There is nothing in the essential nature of proceedings
in
rem which justifies or requires this. Whenever the
res is seized in admiralty proceedings proper or in
revenue or other proceedings partaking of that character, the
property is condemned and sold, and with the distribution of the
proceeds the case ends unless someone appears in court as claimant
either of the
res or its proceeds. When a claimant
appears, he becomes a party to the proceedings, and may defend,
take an appeal, or writ of error, or adopt any other proceeding
that a party properly before the court may be entitled to.
It is true that in placing such cases on the dockets of our
courts and in the reports of our decisions, the name of the vessel
or thing seized is often retained, but in all cases where any
defensive action is taken, some person must appear and claim an
interest or a right to be heard on account of his relation to the
property.
It is said that the statute of Missouri allows the steamboat to
be sued by name and allows a defense to be made by the owner in the
name of the vessel.
But the states cannot in this manner confer on an inanimate
object, without sense or reason or legal capacity, the right to
prosecute legal proceedings in the federal courts. Nor does the
statute under which these proceedings were had in the state court
present any difficulty to a party interested in the boat in
asserting his rights. Section 12 of the Steamboat Law
* provides that the
owner, captain, agent, consignee, or any creditor of the boat, may
appear to the action, on behalf of the boat or vessel, and plead
thereto and defend the same; and though it has been the practice to
do this in the name of the vessel, it has never been held, nor do
we suppose it ever will be by the state courts, that an
Page 76 U. S. 240
owner cannot appear in his own name and assert his rights in the
vessel.
Section 38, however, relieves the matter of all embarrassment
and shows that the framers of the statute seemed to think as we do,
that when an appeal or writ of error was to take the case to a
higher court, it should be by some person who asserted an interest
in the vessel. With the liberal provision which that section makes
for review of the judgment, there can be no necessity that we shall
so far violate reason and law as to permit a steamboat to bring a
suit here by writ of error.
If any person or corporation whom this Court can recognize as a
legal entity, capable of sustaining a suit in this Court, has an
interest in such a controversy, that party must connect himself
with the case in such a manner as to enable himself to assert his
rights here. It cannot be done in the name of a steamboat.
An examination of the records in these cases shows that Adolph
Heinecke did in the inferior court claim to be the owner, and
defended the suit in the name of the steamboat. He likewise made
affidavit that he was the owner, and gave bond to enable him to
appeal to the supreme court of the state. But instead of taking the
appeal in his own name, he took it in the name of the steamboat. We
are of opinion that by a liberal construction of the record, he may
be so far regarded as claimant and party to the record as to enable
him to bring a writ of error to this Court in his own name if he
shall be so advised. The present writs are
Dismissed.
* 1 Revised Statutes of Missouri, 306.
