Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

Shipping.- Maritime lien exists in favor of shippers of goods, for non-fulfilment of contract of affreightment, although contract is to be performed within single State, p. 642.

Approved in Francis v. The Harrison, 1 Sawy. 369, 2 Abb. 89, F. C. 5,038, holding mechanic repairing vessel in home port has lien thereon for such repairs; The Queen of the Pacific, 61 Fed. 214, holding libel in rem may be maintained on contracts of affreightment which are personal contracts. Cited in dissenting opinion in The Lottawanna, 21 Wall. 588, 22 L. 666, discussing admiralty jurisdiction.

Maritime liens.- Materialmen furnishing materials or supplies for vessel in foreign port, or port other than port of State where vessel belongs, have maritime lien on vessel for such materials or supplies, p. 643.

Cited and followed in The Walkyrien, 3 Ben. 395, F. C. 17,091, holding maritime lien given for supplies furnished British ship in New York harbor; The Comfort, 25 Fed. 158, holding recovery for repairs on non-resident's yacht by proceeding in rem allowable. Approved in The General Burnside, 2 Flipp. 148, 3 Fed. 231, holding materialman's lien under statute in home port equal to lien in foreign port.

Distinguished in The Maitland, 2 Biss. 206, F. C. 8,979, holding no lien arises for repairs on vessel in winter quarters in foreign port. Admiralty.— District Courts have exclusive original jurisdiction of all civil causes in admiralty, p. 644.

Cited and followed in The Eagle, 8 Wall. 25, 19 L. 370, holding act of 1845, inoperative, as affecting admiralty jurisdiction of District Courts; Insurance Co. v. Dunham, 11 Wall. 29, 20 L. 98, holding Admiralty Courts have jurisdiction of suit on marine insurance policy; Steamboat Co. v. Chase, 16 Wall. 531, 21 L. 371, holding remedy in Admiralty Courts for injuries through collision, unaffected by State statutes; United States v. Ames, 99 U. S. 43, 25 L. 300, holding District Court has exclusive jurisdiction of suit on bond given in admiralty proceeding; The J. E. Rumbell, 148 U. S. 12, 37 L. 347, 13 S. Ct. 500, holding Admiralty Courts have exclusive jurisdiction to enforce statutory lien by proceeding in rem; Moran v. Sturges, 154 U. S. 277, 38 L. 988, 14 S. Ct. 1025, holding maritime lien unaffected by proceedings in State courts; The Glide, 167 U. S. 614, 618, 42 L. 299, 300, 17 S. Ct. 933, 934, holding lien for repairs on vessel under Massachusetts statute, enforceable only in District Court; Killam v. The Erie, 3 Cliff. 458, F. C. 7,765, holding libel in rem for collision should be brought in District Court; The Hyperion's Cargo, 2 Low. 95, F. C. 6,987, holding master's lien on cargo for demurrage, enforceable in Admiralty Courts; Oakes v. Richardson, 2 Low. 176, F. C. 10,390, holding Admiralty Courts have jurisdiction of contracts of affreightment on navigable waters;

Stewart v. Potomac, etc., Co., 5 Hughes, 382, 12 Fed. 304, holding
admiralty jurisdiction exclusive in courts of United States; Scott's
case, 1 Abb. Adm. 340, F. C. 12,522, holding admiralty jurisdiction
conferred upon District Courts by act of 1789, is exclusive; Francis
v. The Harrison, 2 Abb. 77, 1 Sawy. 356, F. C. 5,038, holding Dis-
trict Courts have exclusive jurisdiction to enforce maritime liens
given by State statutes; The E. M. McChesney, 8 Ben. 155, F. C.
4,463, holding proceeding in rem to enforce contract of affreight-
ment, within exclusive admiralty jurisdiction; Haslett v. The En-
terprise, 11 Fed. Cas. 784, holding proceeding in rem lies in ad-
miralty to enforce maritime lien given by statute; United States
v. Burlington, etc., Co., 21 Fed. 337, holding jurisdiction of Ad-
miralty Courts over tort committed on navigable waters, exclusive;
The Willamette Valley, 62 Fed. 296, holding admiralty has exclusive
jurisdiction to enforce libel in rem for supplies furnished vessel;
Murphey v. Mobile, etc., Co., 49 Ala. 438, holding lien for supplies
unenforceable by proceeding in rem in State court; Stroupper v.
McCauley, 45 Ga. 79, holding States cannot confer jurisdiction to
enforce liens by proceedings in rem; Haeberle v. Barringer, 29 La.
Ann. 411, holding State courts without jurisdiction of suit against
vessel accompanied by seizure of vessel; Warren v. Kelley, 80 Me.
529, 15 Atl. 52, holding admiralty has exclusive jurisdiction to en-
force payment for repairs by proceeding in rem; Atlantic Works
v. The Glide, 157 Mass. 527, 34 Am. St. Rep. 307, 33 N. E. 164,
holding Admiralty Courts have exclusive jurisdiction to enforce
maritime liens given by State statutes; Hamilton v. Merrill, 37 Ohio
St. 684, holding defense on merits, not waiver of objection to juris-
diction over maritime contract; The Portland v. Lewis, 2 S. & R.
200, holding Common Pleas Court without jurisdiction of proceed-
ing in rem against vessel for labor; Weston v. Morse, 40 Wis. 459,
holding Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction to enforce liens
in rem given by State statute. See valuable note in 62 Am. Dec.
236, 23 Am. St. Rep. 839, and 34 Am. St. Rep. 310.

Distinguished in Pennywit v. Eaton, 15 Wall. 384, 21 L. 114, hold-
ing State courts have jurisdiction of action on promissory note
against owners of vessel; Walter v. Kierstead, 74 Ga. 24, holding
suitor may proceed by attachment in State court for injury to
dredge; Gindele v. Corrigan, 129 Ill. 588, 16 Am. St. Rep. 295, 22
N. E. 517, holding State court has jurisdiction of suit on bond given
for release of vessel; Southern, etc., Co. v. Gibson, 22 La. Ann. 624,
holding Admiralty Courts without exclusive jurisdiction to enforce
lien for repairs on domestic vessel; Mitchell v. The Magnolia, 45
Mo. 69, holding State courts have jurisdiction to enforce lien for
equipping steamboat at home port; Baird v. Daly, 57 N. Y. 247, 15
Am. Rep. 491, holding State courts have jurisdiction of action in
personam on maritime contract; Brown v. Gilmore, 92 Pa. St. 46,
holding State court has jurisdiction of action in personam for col-

lision on Ohio river; Warehouse, etc., Co. v. Galvin, 96 Wis. 527,
65 Am. St. Rep. 58, 71 N. W. 805, holding shipper may sue on con-
tract of affreightment in State court.

Admiralty. Where voyage and transportation are performed on
tide waters, Admiralty Courts have exclusive jurisdiction, p. 639.
Admiralty. Common-law remedies on maritime contracts or
marine torts, may be pursued in State or Circuit Courts, p. 644.

Cited and followed in Steamboat Co. v. Chase, 16 Wall. 533, 21
L. 372, holding remedy for injuries through collision at sea, ob-
tainable by suit in State court; Home, etc., Co. v. Northwestern,
etc., Co., 32 Iowa, 243, 7 Am. Rep. 190, holding damages for loss of
property on Mississippi, recoverable in State courts; Albany, etc.,
Co. v. Whitney, 70 Pa. St. 252, holding Common Pleas has juris-
diction of action in personam on maritime contract. Approved in
Manchester v. Massachusetts, 139 U. S. 263, 35 L. 166, 11 S. Ct. 564,
holding valid, Massachusetts statute regulating fisheries in waters
within State jurisdiction.

Admiralty. Common-law remedies are not applicable to enforce
maritime liens by proceedings in rem; hence original jurisdiction
to enforce such liens is in District Courts, p. 645.

Cited in Leon v. Galceran, 11 Wall. 192, 20 L. 77, holding State
court without jurisdiction to maintain proceeding in rem for
mariner's wages.

Maritime liens.- States cannot create maritime liens or confer
jurisdiction on State courts to enforce such liens, p. 644.

Cited and followed in The Lottawanna, 20 Wall. 218, 22 L. 262,
holding States cannot create or confer jurisdiction to enforce mari-
time liens; Edwards v. Elliott, 21 Wall. 556, 22 L. 492, holding State
cannot create maritime lien for materials furnished to build ship;
Stewart v. Potomac, etc., Co., 5 Hughes, 376, 12 Fed. 299, holding
void, Virginia statute in effect conferring admiralty jurisdiction on
State court; Scott's case, 1 Abb. 340, F. C. 12,522, holding State
cannot create upon property within admiralty jurisdiction, charges
operating as maritime liens; The Kate Tremaine, 5 Ben. 71, F. C.
7,622, holding State cannot, by statute, create maritime lien on
vessel for wharfage; In re The Edith, 11 Blatchf. 464, 465, 466, F.
C. 4,283, holding States cannot create or enforce maritime lien by
proceeding in rem; Moir v. The Dubuque, 17 Fed. Cas. 569, holding
void, State statutes conferring admiralty jurisdiction; The Iron-
sides, 13 Fed. Cas. 106, holding mortgage on propeller payable with-
out reference to liens under State watercraft laws; Pelham v. The
B. F. Woolsey, 3 Fed. 462, holding State cannot create or enforce
maritime lien for repairs and alterations on vessel; The General
Tompkins, 9 Fed. 621, holding invalid, provisions of Missouri stat-
ute regulating enforcement of liens for supplies; The Elexena, 53

Fed. 365, holding void, Virginia statutes defeating prior maritime
liens by condemnation proceedings; The Cerro Gordo, 62 Conn. 584,
54 Fed. 395, holding maritime lien for wages, undefeated by judg-
ment and attachment in State courts; Scatcherd, etc., Co. v. Rike,
113 Ala. 560, 561, 59 Am. St. Rep. 149, 150, 21 So. 137, 138, holding
States cannot confer jurisdiction to enforce maritime liens; Marshall
v. Curtis, 5 Bush, 611, 613, 614, holding Missouri statute cannot
enforce lien on vessel by proceeding in rem; Hayford v. Cunning-
ham, 72 Me. 133, holding lien for repairs on foreign vessel, unen-
forceable in rem in State courts; Edwards v. Elliott, 34 N. J. L. 99,
holding State cannot enforce, by proceeding in rem, lien for ship-
building; Brookman v. Hamill, 43 N. Y. 558, 560, 3 Am. Rep. 734,
735, void statute providing for enforcement of wharfage claims by
attachment; Vose v. Cockcroft, 44 N. Y. 420, holding void, statute
providing for proceeding in rem against vessels for supplies; The
Petrel v. Dumont, 28 Ohio St. 617, 22 Am. Rep. 405, holding void,
State statute giving remedy by proceeding in rem on maritime con-
tract; Campbell v. Sherman, 35 Wis. 107, holding State statute
cannot give remedy in rem to enforce claim for pilot's wages. See
valuable note in 62 Am. Dec. 240, and 13 Am. Rep. 275. Approved in
Atlantic Works v. The Glide, 157 Mass. 533, 33 N. E. 165, in dis-
senting opinion, majority holding State court may enforce statutory
lien for repairs on domestic vessel.

Distinguished in Edwards v. Elliott, 21 Wall. 557, 22 L. 492, hold-
ing States may enforce liens for shipbuilding, consistent with ex-
clusive jurisdiction of Admiralty Courts; Norton v. Switzer, 93 U.
S. 366, 23 L. 907, holding State may create and enforce liens for
repairs on vessel in home port; Johnson v. Chicago, etc., Co., 119
U. S. 397, 30 L. 450, 7 S. Ct. 258, holding State may give lien on
vessel for damages to buildings on land; Francis v. The Harrison,
2 Abb. 76, 77, 82, 1 Sawy. 355, 356, 360, F. C. 5,038, holding valid,
California statute giving lien for repairs on domestic vessel pref-
erence over mortgage; The Surplus, etc., of The Edith, 5 Ben. 437,
F. C. 4,282, holding State may create and enforce lien for repairs
on domestic ship; The Selt, 3 Biss. 349, F. C. 12,649, holding State
may, under twelfth rule, authorize proceeding in rem for repairs
on vessel; In re The Edith, 11 Blatchf. 455, F. C. 4,283, holding
State may give lien on contract in absence of maritime lien thereon;
The J. F. Warner, 22 Fed. 345, State may attach lien to maritime
contract, enforceable in admiralty; The E. P. Dorr v. Waldron, 62
Ill. 226, 228, 230, 14 Am. Rep. 89, 91, 93, holding State legislature
may create and enforce liens for supplies furnished domestic ves-
sel; Sinton v. The R. R. Roberts, 34 Ind. 451, 7 Am. Rep. 231, hold-
ing State court has jurisdiction of action in rem for shipbuilding;
Warren v. Kelley, 80 Me. 525, 15 Atl. 50, holding States may give
lien for maritime service, in absence of maritime lien therefor;
Donnell v. The Starlight, 103 Mass. 230, holding State courts have

jurisdiction to enforce statutory liens for shipbuilding; Atlantic Works v. The Glide, 157 Mass. 525, 526, 34 Am. St. Rep. 305, 306, 33 N. E. 163, holding State may give jurisdiction to enforce lien for repairs on domestic vessel; Globe, etc., Works v. The John B. Ketcham, 2d, 100 Mich. 588, 43 Am. St. Rep. 468, 59 N. W. 248, holding State courts have jurisdiction to enforce lien for shipbuilding under Michigan statute; Dever v. The Hope, 42 Miss. 724, 2 Am. Rep. 649, holding Mississippi watercraft law gives State courts no jurisdiction of maritime liens; The C. H. Burke, etc., Co. v. The A. Saltzman, 42 Mo. App. 93, holding States may create and enforce liens for repairs on vessel in home port; The Victorian, 24 Or. 131, 41 Am. St. Rep. 843, 32 Pac. 1042, holding valid, State statute enforcing lien for shipbuilding, by proceeding in rem; The Willapa, 25 Or. 76, 34 Pac. 690, holding valid, liens granted by State statute for supplies furnished in home port; Waggoner v. St. John, 10 Heisk. 514, 521, holding valid, statute giving remedy in personam for liens on vessels.

Admiralty. Shippers may proceed in rem in admiralty to enforce lien, or in personam against owners for non-fulfilment of contract of carriage, or they may pursue common-law action against owners, p. 645.

Cited and followed in The Atlas, 93 U. S. 316, 23 L. 866, holding shipper, losing cargo, may sue in personam in admiralty or at law; Southwestern, etc., Co. v. Pittsburgh, etc., Co., 42 Fed. 920, holding libel for salvage may be prosecuted in personam in admiralty; State v. Judge, 39 La. Ann. 501, 4 Am. St. Rep. 276, 2 So. 39, holding claim for money secured by statutory lien, enforceable in State courts.

Shipping. Suits at common law, on contract of affreightment, are same as suits on other contracts, and property of owner is liable to attachment to extent of owner's interest therein, p. 645.

Cited and followed in Southern, etc., Co. v. The J. D. Perry, 23 La. Ann. 41, 8 Am. Rep. 587, holding State courts cannot enforce lien for repairs in foreign port.

Maritime lien.- No maritime lien arises for materials or supplies furnished vessel at home port, p. 645.

Cited and followed in The Lottawanna, 20 Wall. 218, 219, 22 L. 262, holding no proceeding in rem lies for materials and supplies furnished domestic vessel; The Albany, 4 Dill. 443, F. C. 131, holding materialman has no lien for supplies or repairs to domestic vessel; The Kate Hinchman, 7 Biss. 240, F. C. 7,621, holding duly recorded mortgage payable in preference to claim for repairs in home port; The Surplus, etc., of The Edith, 5 Ben. 436, F. C. 4,282, holding no maritime lien arises for supplies and repairs furnished vessel in home port; The Mary Bell, 1 Sawy. 137, F. C. 9,199, holding admiralty law gives no lien for plumbing done on vessel in

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »