
    TWITCHELL vs. THE STEAM BOAT MISSOURI.
    The statute of this State concerning boats and vessels, is limited in its provisions to contracts made within the State.
    APPEAL FROM ST. LOUIS COURT OF COMMON PLEAS,
    STATEMENT of the case.
    This was an action for money lent to the steam boat Missouri, a boat running between the port of St. Louis in this State, and that of New Orleans in the State of Louisiana. The monies were advanced on account of John W. Twitchell, tho master of said boat, for the purpose of paying for stores and supplies furnished by sundry persons to the boat within six months before the bringing of this suit, and for monies paid to the hands as wages, and which also accrued within six months before the bringing of this suit. The money was lent to the boat while it was lying in the port of New Orleans.
    On the trial of the cause, the plaintiff gave evidence tending to prove that the monies advanced were advanced for the express purpose of enabling the master to pay wages due to tho officers and crew of said boat, and for provisions, wood, and other supplies, before then, and within] six months before the i nstitvtion of this suit, furnished to the boat by sundry persons; and that tho money thus advanced was in fact so applied by the master, and that the same has not been refunded or repaid to the plaintiff. That at the time when said wages accrued, and said supplies were furnished, and said money advanced, the said boat was engaged in running regularly between the ports of St. Louis and New Orleans, but that the advances were made at New Orleans from time to time as tho boat was there. The plaintiff resided at New Orleans. This was all the testimony in the case—whereupon the defendant moved the court to declare the law to be “that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover if the said cause of action, accrued o,ut of the State, and at the port of New Orleans In the State of Upuisiana.
    Tho court gave the instruction, and judgment, for the defendant; the plaintiff filed his motion for a new trial, which was overruled, to which tho plaintiff' excepted, and brings the cause to. this C<ourt.
    Whittlesey, Crockett & Briggs, for appellant.
    
      In this caso the plaintiff contends that under tho laws of this State, the monies advanced to the boat by the plaintiff for the purpose of paying the wages of the hands, and for supplies and s tores furnished, were a lien upon said boat, and for which suit could be instituted against the boat by name. This point is decided in steam boat Gen. Brady vs. Buckley et al, 8 Mo. Rep. 558. “I am inclined to think that under this provision of tho law, ought to be included not only money, to purchase stores and supplies for the use of the boat,” &c. The same is tho rule of the maratiine law, that for advances, for money to be applied to pay for repairs, stores and supplies, the master has authority to bind tho vessel and owners, the rulo only requiring that they shall be so applied in good faith, and that the creditor must show that they have been so applied, Keith vs. Murdock 2 Wash. C. 0. Rep. 297; 12 Conn. 489; Read vs. Commercial Ins. Co.; 3 John Rep. 352.
    The testimony in this case shows that the money was faithfully applied to pay for stores, supplies and wages. The plaintiff then iiad alien upon the boat by the maratiine law, and under our statute, unless the fact that the advances were made at the port of Now Orleans out of this State, cuts off his claim and remedy in this State, under the statutes relating to boats and vessels.
    The next question is the lien of the plaintiff cut out by the fact that tho advances were made at tho port of New Orleans. Tho boat was used in navigating the waters of this State, running between the ports of St. Louis and New Orleans. Tho plaintiff then brings himself within the express language of the statute, giving liens against all boats used in navigating the waters of this State. This case differs from the case of the steam boat Raritan vs. Pollard, 10 Mo. Rep. 583 in the fact, that there the lien accrued against the boat when she was not navigating the waters of this State; but in this case the boat was running between the ports of St. Louis and New Orleans.
    The equitable principle of subrogation might also he applied to this caso, for as the money had been applied to pay wages and for stores and supplies, the plaintiff might be allowed to stand in tho place of those who had furnished the stores and supplies, and had rendered services on the boat.
    The plaintiff therefore submits that tho court below erred in the instruction given, and that its judgment should bo reversed.
    Spalding & Shepley, for appellee.
    1st. These advances were not a continuation of the old debts for wages and supplies ; and (if those were liens,) were not a continuation of those lions, but were in discharge of the former indebtedness and liens, if they were such ; and therefore such advances, if they imposed a lien at all under our laws, imposed such lien, only from the date of the advance. It was a new contract.
    2d. Being a new contract, and operating to discharge prior debts, and not being itself the primary debt which was a lien, and its lien, if any, commenced at the time of the advance, and such advance being on a contract in another State, on account of the boat then there, and by a citizen there, it could not create a Hen under our statute. 10 Mo. Rep. 584; 16 Ohio Rep. 91; Jb. 178.
    These three decisions are conceived to be directly on the point. The contract was made in another State—the boat and master were then there ¿ the person who made the advance, and in whose favor the contract was, resided there, and of course the debt was payable, or at least was contemplated to be paid there ; the place of making the contract was severed from the State of Missouri and its waters, by a thousand intervening miles of territory belonging to other jurisdictions, so far as the question is concerned, foreign to this State.
    It is submitted, therefore, that tho principle of tho instruction given by the [court below, is right, our act of Assembly has no extra-territorial effect, and in fact, in its terms does not purport to comprehend contracts made out of tho State, on account of the boat while she is out of the State.
    Tho acts of Ohioaudof Missouii are substantially the same. Both make Hens ouly against the boat while navigating the waters of Missouri or of Ohio, respectively. Their policy is to leave ail contracts made in other jurisdictions to the ordinary remedies, or to such remedies as may be specially provided in the place where the contracts are made.
   Judge Hyland

delivered the opinion of the court.

From the statement of the facts as agreed on by the counsel in this case, the main point for the adjudication of this court is, the construction of our statute concerning “boats and vessels.” This is not now for the first time to bo settled. The facts as stated come fully and entirely within the principles and reasoning of this court in a late decision made at Jefferson City in the case of Noble vs. steam boat St. Anthony.

The main principle settled by the court in that case, is, that our statute concerning “ boats and vessels” is extra-territorial in its operation. That when the cause of action arose without the jurisdiction, and far from the limits of this State, the action could not he maintained under this statute, against the boat. Our courts are always open to afford the common law remedies. But this peculiar statutory remedy is allowed on contracts made within our own territory and our own jurisdiction.

The supreme court of the State of Ohio has decided on a statute similar to ours, in the same way. That court says that their statute has no extra-territorial operation. 16 Ohio Rep. 91 ; Ib. 178.

Supported, then, by the authority of the supreme court of Ohio, upon a statute very similar to ours, I concur in the views and decision heretofore made by this court, believing that decision well calculated to carry out the design and intention of the legislature.

Such being the opinion of my brother judges, the judgment of the court below is affirmed.  