Rounds v. Cloverport Foundry & MacHine Co.
35 S. Ct. 596, 1915 U.S. LEXIS 1337, 237 U.S. 303 (1915)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state court can adjudicate an in personam claim against a vessel's owners for repairs and issue an auxiliary attachment against the vessel to secure payment for the judgment, as this constitutes a common law remedy and does not encroach upon the exclusive admiralty jurisdiction of federal courts over in rem proceedings.
Facts:
- F. T. Rounds and S. A. Jesse were the owners of a steamboat known as the 'R. D. Kendall'.
- Rounds and Jesse entered into a contract with the Cloverport Foundry and Machine Company to repair and rebuild the steamboat.
- As part of the contract, the vessel was renamed the 'Golden Girl'.
- Cloverport Foundry and Machine Company performed the work and furnished materials for the steamboat's repair.
- A dispute arose when Cloverport claimed it was owed $5,668.65 for the work, which the owners had not paid.
Procedural Posture:
- Cloverport Foundry and Machine Company filed suit against F. T. Rounds and S. A. Jesse in the Breckinridge Circuit Court of Kentucky, a state trial court.
- Pursuant to a state statute, the trial court issued a specific attachment against the steamboat 'Golden Girl'.
- The defendants, Rounds and Jesse, executed a forthcoming bond to secure the release of the vessel.
- The defendants challenged the court's jurisdiction via a special demurrer, arguing the subject-matter was exclusive to admiralty courts.
- The state trial court overruled the demurrer.
- Following a trial on the merits, the court entered judgment for Cloverport, ordering the vessel to be sold to satisfy the debt.
- Rounds and Jesse, as appellants, appealed to the Court of Appeals of Kentucky, the state's highest appellate court.
- The Court of Appeals of Kentucky affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of Cloverport, the appellee.
- Rounds and Jesse, as plaintiffs in error, brought the case to the U.S. Supreme Court on a writ of error.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state court proceeding in personam against the owners of a vessel for repair costs, which includes a specific attachment of the vessel to secure a potential judgment, encroach upon the exclusive admiralty jurisdiction of the federal courts?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Hughes
No. A state court proceeding in personam against a vessel's owners, with an auxiliary attachment against the vessel itself, does not encroach upon the exclusive admiralty jurisdiction of federal courts. The court distinguished between an action 'in rem' and an action 'in personam'. An action 'in rem' is a proceeding against the vessel itself as the offending party, which falls under exclusive federal admiralty jurisdiction. In contrast, an action 'in personam' is a suit against the individual owners to secure a personal judgment. State courts have jurisdiction over 'in personam' actions, and the attachment of a vessel in such a suit is merely an auxiliary remedy to provide security for that personal judgment. This type of action is considered a 'common law remedy' preserved for suitors by the Judiciary Act. The suit in this case was brought against the owners personally, and the attachment and subsequent order to sell the vessel were merely means to satisfy the personal judgment against them.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the scope of the 'saving to suitors' clause in the Judiciary Act, affirming a clear jurisdictional line between state courts and federal admiralty courts. It establishes that the nature of the lawsuit—whether 'in personam' against an owner or 'in rem' against the vessel itself—is the determinative factor. By permitting state courts to use attachments against vessels in personal lawsuits, the decision provides a practical and accessible remedy for creditors like repair companies, allowing them to secure their claims in local courts without navigating the complexities of federal admiralty proceedings. This preserves a significant role for state courts in resolving maritime-related contract disputes so long as the action is directed at the person, not the property, as the primary defendant.
