*1 BIRD v. STEAMBOAT of the Case. Statement B. of FREEMAN and FREEMAN B. the Matter In THE STEAMBOAT BIRD, Jr., JOSEPHINE, her and Furniture. Tackle, Apparel,
Lien on Jurisdiction— Unconstitutionality. Vessels—Statute of 1862— against a proceeding name, 1862, A steamer authorized the statute of nature, admiralty. and with all the of a proceeding incidents, suit The characteristic feature of under this is, statute it is the vessel against itself, impleaded is seized and as the Defendant, and and accordingly. sentenced On the 10th of December, Freeman B. Bird and day Freeman Bird, B. сreditors Jr., above-en- attaching titled filed of lien the steam- proceeding, specifications against boat her tackle, &c., Josephine, pursuant provisions Act of the of of the State An New entitled Legislature York, Act to for the Collection of Demands provide Ships against (Laws 24th, Yessels,” passed April 1862, chap. 482), furnished them at the supplies city New York to the said between the 1st steamboat, 5th day June, 1866, day 1866. December, said time the steamboat was
During enrolled at the Custom- House in the of New city York, engaged running between the of New York and the port county'of Monmouth, State New Jersey.
The residence of the owner of the steamboat does not ap- pear.
On the 11th day April, 1867, creditors attaching duly obtained from Mr. Justice a Justice of the Barnard, a warrant of Court, attachment the said to en- steamboat, force their said lien, on the 12th thereupon, day April, the Sheriff of the city of New county York seized the said her steambоat, tackle, &c., made his return of said seizure on the 19th day April, 1867. BIRD v. STEAMBOAT JOSEPHINE. [Maboii,
Statemsnt of the Case. On the 4th of an affidavit day May, 1867, forth upon setting of the said the nature creditors, attaching amount of their and the claim, belief a late decision of that, by Court Supreme of the United it was States, State Courts had no enforce based upon claims of the character of the said and that creditors, attaching to enforce such lien was vested in the Courts exclusively of of the аn Admiralty jurisdiction order to show States, cause was his duly Honor Justice granted by Barnard, upon motion of the for the owner of said attorney steamboat, directing creditors show cause before on the 10th attaching him, day May, the said 1867, warrant of attachment why therefor, issued him on the 11th should not be set April, 1867, day aside and vacated, the meantime staying on the of the said part creditors. attaching
Thereafter, the said order to show hearing cause, said Justice rendered his and'made an which was decision, order, duly entered, the said warrant of at-' vacating discharging tachment, that the' officer the said ground war- issuing rant had not therefor, said provisions statute conferring contravention of the Con- power being stitution of the United and of the Act of Congress vesting in the Courts of Admi- exclusively of the United ralty States.
The said order the said vacating warrant of discharging attachment the said having duly entered, attaching creditors, on the 17th day June, from the 1867, said order appealed the General Term of the Court.
The said was appeal on the 18th argued day November, 1867, thereafter the said General Term rendered a decision the said order of the 7th of reversing and an order June, 1867, on thereupon duly the 10th entered, day February, in all the said things order of June reversing 7th, 1867; the owner thereupon and claimant of the said steamboat Jo- her sephine-, tackle, from &c., duly appealed last-mentioned order to this Court. STEAMBOAT JOSEPHINE.
.1868.] by Mason, A. for Oharles Bapallo Appellant. for t&
Pvnelvney Respondents. Spinlt for is the J. The con- Mason, presented adjudication question en- of the Act April 24th, Legislature stitutionality the Collection of An Act to Demands titled provide and Vessels.” Ships that “Whenever a declares debt, amounting statute as to a or ocean-bound dollars upwards, sea-going
fifty other vessel, dollars or to fifteen any upwards, amounting *3 or builder, charterer, master, owner, shall be contracted by them or of either of vessel, any ship agent consignee.of 1st. On for either this State, following purposes: within or other articles furnished in or materials account of work done, for or towards furnish- repairing, building, fitting, State, For such 2d. vessel; and ship provisions or equipping ing, fit and for this State be tire furnished within may proper stores at time when the same were furnished vessel of such use her a lien sueh debt shall be vessel, taoMe, sueh .... mid be to all other liens shall and furniture, preferred apparel, mari/nerd wages." thereon, except and fifth subdivisions of the same
The fourth, section, third, manner for a class of other and in the same debts large provide and them in the liens same vessel, claims declare against and to the same extent. manner, for a in rem direct
The statute provides to ‘enforce such liens, the same directs how seizing a shall be for conducted; provides publication unless the &c.; and, war- some printed county, newspaper shall directs sale Sheriff the coun- rant discharged, her &c. the vessel tackle, seized, ty, return to the officer the order
The Sheriff is to his granting and the under the after his same, proceeds, deducting and the statute the distribution of the provides fees, &c.; &c. funds, the Constitution of the section of the third article of second [MARCH, Masoh, declares other judicial pow-
United. States, among things, “ all to cases of admiralty shall extend of the United States er maritime jurisdiction.” the Act Septémber section of Congress, approved ninth declares Act, called
24th, 1789, commonly shall exclusive the United States original District Courts of and maritime jurisdic- civil causes admiralty cognizance of a common law in all tion to cases, suitors, it U. S. law is where the common competent give (1 remedy, seen, therefore, at It will be ju- Statutes p. 77). Large, to all causes of admi- States extends dicial of the United and that this Act of Congress ralty jurisdiction; the United States shall have Courts of declares that the District of all civil causes exclusive admiralty original cognizance common law rem- maritime concurrent only jurisdiction, saving it. the common law suitors, competent give edy The terms jurisdiction,” according to all done and received extend use, things etymology to commerce to transactions and navi sea, relating relating and to sea—all maritime injuries upon gation, damages *4 and Lovio v. Gall. R. torts, Boit, contracts, injuries (De 41 and Practice, Admiralty 42). Dunlap’s Act of to then, delegation, giving of the United States the exclusive the District Courts cognizanc e and of maritime em of all civil causes admiralty jurisdiction, maritime and and contracts, braces torts, comprehends'»® injuries Lovio v. Gall. R. Pr. Boit, 474; Dunlap’s Admiralty 43). (De The civilians charter-parties, jurists agree affreight- for maritime marine contracts service ments, hypothecations, in the are, supplying, navigating ships, building, repairing, “ ” in the term maritime other embraced contracts things, among R. Pr. 2 Gall. 474). (Dunlap’s Admiralty of The terms of Cоnsti- judicial power grant general in all States to the Federal causes tution of of .rendered it difficult to admiralty jurisdiction, in the Federal the exact limits of this Courts. define BIRD by Mason, At has arisen from the considerations: This difficulty following the United the Constitution of of the time adoption had been established of jurisdiction materi- and maritime nations, however, in all commercial differing, in the and duties confidedto them. countries different powers ally the continent of maritime Courts of Europе formerly of of all controversies included respécting freight; of mariners of the of ; to ; par shipped wages goods damages of of commissions or sale; jettison tition ships by public of debts contracted mariners; masters bailments to made of his use and necessities ship; master for the agreements with the master; or merchants master with merchants, of the armament or on the shore; found seas, on high goods or other vessels, generally ships, galleys, equipment ” the sea Gall. in the customs of (2 declared contracts other Pr. Adm. R. 400; Dunlap’s Con- of our Federal at the time of adoption
This jurisdiction, and in different States, differed essentially stitution, very look for boun- we have been accustomed to which England, The Courts Law Courts. Common daries and severe contest after a struggle, England, at centuries, had, two Law Courts the Common nearly with Constitu- of our Federal time above referred (the adoption of their ancient shorn jurisdiction. been greatly tion), the Cоm- their prohibitions frequent zeal and maintained as perti- Law Courts, they mon severe collisions so seldom equalled, resulting nacity Law to under the Common yield compelled Admiralty, being them on occasions, several sought issued against prohibitions in. resulted agreements, redress King, petitions com- on and then, as to their again, stipulations, jurisdiction; *5 violated, were that these from the stipulations plaint Admiralty new and then came stipulations. new granting prohibitions; to drive the were essentially The results of these controversies land from the in their entirely Courts Admiralty maintained asserted Common Law Courts while the sea, fio STEAMBOAT JOSEPHINE. BIRD V. Mason, in Admi- of all causes cognizable concurrent jurisdiction
complete cases. ralty, prize except the Courts of Admiralty now exercised limited powers the most severe maintained without strug- not been have
England as,, not to be Federal Courts controlling and are held our gles, in this Courts country. of our Admiralty Courts in If turn England we from Admiralty Courts in seen that Admiralty will be colonies, .American Revolution, possessed very the American .the before colonies, than the Courts so extensive admiralty jurisdiction —more not -uniform were their yet powers Admiralty England; in the colonies. commissions from conferred
They generally King. New issued to the Governor of
The commission Hampshire most extensive. had Court Massachusetts And the Yice-Admiralty jurisdic- Courts far more extensive than that of the Admiralty Eng- tion Gall. R. 471, land (2 as to in this state of confusion admiralty jurisdiction
It was the United States was Constitution of adopted, conferring, the Federal Courts in terms, in these judicial power general jurisdiction. all causes our Courts have had other difficulties which There with boundaries encounter defining precision .to of this from country, arising and dis- character of our separate the complex government, are exercised powers sovereignty specified tinct of each within the same and a other, State, independently States limits. territorial has led of our the United character complex government into a novel and ununiform some eases, very sys
States administration, by allowing sustaining pro tem .admiralty law or of State in reua wherever the local statutes gave ceedings maritime law instead of a lien property, looking R. Gen. 4 Wheat. R. Sumner’s its Smith, guide (The *6 STEAMBOAT JOSEPHINE. BIRD v. by Mason, 246 The C. R. id. Steamer St. Law Circuit Story’s 79 ; 74, 1 Black’s al., et Rep. rence Meyer v. in made a rule of Court which was 1844, was
This practice the Courts have in and since that time rule 1858, abolished by in rem where rested on suсh liens they solely refused to enforce - State statutes. this case involves conflict between presented question Governments. The Federal Government
the State and Federal the Consti- conferred by no or jurisdiction except has power withdrawn from itself. The extent of tution General as we seen, vested Government, States and maritime all casesof admiralty jurisdiction,” extends to construction of the the extent power depends upon proper this constitutional provision. are from considerations
Its terms certainly indefinite, arising which we have above referred. to what cases limits can be ascertained reference Its only framers of the Con- understood this country, the Con- when stitution, cognizable as thtf it then, stitution was for what was meant formed; true criterion which is to framers then understood is the it, be construed'. framers of the of the Constitution
Many participated Act of which conferred upon passage Judiciary of аll District Courts United States exclusive cognizance to the civil and maritime causes admiralty jurisdiction, all Common Law Courts of the cases, administer common law the common remedies, it. competent give there-
The construction this constitutional put provision, mari- Act is that framers fore, by time conferred the Federal and that there no causes is reserved exclusive, concurrent such is States; saved now settled construction of the Constitution put upon provision Cоurt of the United States. STEAMBOAT JOSEPHINE. *7 J.
Opinion by Mason; in rem under the State statute of ease under cannot be as consideration, statute it- sustained, self is if to be as a unconstitutional, maritime regarded a contract, of which Court of has Admiralty jurisdiction. has been decided two recent question expressly deci- sions of the Court of the United States.
In the of The Moses U. case S. Taylor Wallace, R. a (4 411) statute to our own held in similar was to be conflict with the Con- stitution of the United the ninth section Stаtes; in Act of vests the District Courts United States exclusive of all civil causes of cognizance admiralty and maritime is constitutional. jurisdiction,
It was in that that a held, statute of expressly California, similar to our which authorizes in rem own, vessels for causes of in action to that cognizable admiralty, extent to invest Courts of that State with attempts admiralty ninth that the clause in the section jurisdiction; suitors of a common law where a remedy, common law remedy in it, does not. save as сompetent give rem, used Jn the Courts. Admiralty
These were reaffirmed case The Hine principles Trevor Wallace R. which the State statutes of (4 556), Iowa, which are much like ours, attachment very authorizing held conflict with the vessels, Act invalid, being exclusive Congress conferring the District Courts of the States. was a
The latter case of tort for a collision on the at or near vessel was St. seized River, Louis, Mississippi while at the at the State of Iowa. Davenport, landing lying under cоnsideration The claim the ease was supplies domestic furnished to the steamer vessel, Josephine —a to her were furnished while she her home but port; supplies York and from the out of New running port bay in the State around to Monmouth of New Jersey. county, was the home of this New York city port Now, assuming could the maritime law which no lien under there was 13 v. Mason,
Opinion by
4
enforced
rem in a Court- of
Gen. Smith,
Admiralty (The
Wheat. R. 438
21 How.
v.
;
Card,
Claimant,
Stephen
Maguire,
2 Gall.
4
97;
R.
The Levi
Hall’s Law
248;
Dearborne,
Journal,
The Robert
R.
The Two
433;
Bee’s Adm. R.
Friends,
453
C. C. R.
Paine’s R.
Wash.
Fulton,
President,
Adm. Practice,
v. Howard, 7
Peyroux
Peters, 341; Dunlap’s
as we have seen,
and where State statute
such lien,
54);
gives
our Courts of
will not enforce it
Maguire
(Thomas
v.
How.
Steamer St. Lawrence,
R.
Stephen Card,
248; The
If this vessel was owned New as is by Jersey, suggested in counsel his then the maritime brief, gives Appellant’s in in a lien for these and rem admiralty supplies, proceedings 438 ; be taken to enforce it 4 Wheat. R. (The Smith, Gen. may 1 The 2 Gall. R. The Peters’ Adm. Jerusalem, 349; Sandwich, The R. The Bee’s Adm. R. 1 note; 78; Eagle, Aurora, R. 105 Wheat. Adm. Pr. ; Dunlap’s 54). I
This as understand to be a York admits this New it, and that these furnished to her in her home vessel, supplies and and there was no lien no port, consecpiently in rem could be taken in the Courts. proceedings Admiralty It had remains to be considered whether our Courts of Admiralty in a in of this suit to enforce personam payment claim for There can on this be little doubt supplies. subject; I will content autho mysеlf by following simply referring in our own The rities, sustain it: Gen. fully 4 438 12 395 10 Smith, Wheat R. Wheat. R. id. id. ; 611; ; 7 6 How. R. 3 1 R. 473 U. S. Mason’s R. Sumner’s 344; 94; 4 in a Mason’s R. 196. The suit 157; admiralty jurisdiction does not personam question (Mar depend shall v. N. Y. Obs. 1 Abbot’s Adm. Blatch Bazin, 1; Leg.
ford’s R. 175).
The rem is cumulative many proceed and does not exclude the cases, v. remedy personam (Brevoor The Fair 1 Peters’ Adm. R. American,
As it is settled Court decisions of the of the STEAMBOAT JOSEPHINE. Grover, J. Moses Taylor, to above in the cases referred (The
United States 555, 568), id. Trevor, Wallace R. Hine v. District exclusive сonferred upon cognizance from the State Courts, all' States excludes law, the common is as concurrent except remedy given of this under the statute in rem, that these follows cannot sustained. State, authorized name, this steamer proceeding against and with all in the nature,
the statute of is proceeding feature characteristic suit incidents, admiralty. vessel proceeded under this statute is, Defendant, is itself seized impleaded which just sentenced accordingly, in rem. in a Court in proceedings from, the order lead appealed . These views reversal or of Term, Judge affirmanceof the order Special Chambers. and Woodeuee, Ch.J., Ba-
Concurring: Dwight, IItot, JJ. CON, case is whether, question (dissenting).—The
Grover, a valid of Laws of lien 1862, of 482, under the„provisions chapter taclde, pro a her &c., furnishing can be upon acquired within this at her home port, to such vessel visions stores from time to time, is while such vessel State, making engaged, Monmouth, in the State of New Jersey, from to such port voyages to the provisions enforced and whether such lien can be pursuant far it for the so of said the said act, provides whether act, invalid. It case, in such is of a lien and enforcement acquisition of a is valid for the creation that act would seem be clear not it because, so, It for its enforcement, lien. must be so for w-ant lien, no mode and the it, there would be of enforcing would be thereof, nullity. necessity it con- The act invalid claimed upon ground . flicts with the and maritime jurisdiction exclusive admiralty lien and its in the United States. If such vested Courts BIBD opinion by Gboteb, conflict, does so follows Act is void; enforcement when the made Constitution laws in the vest exclusive United States thereof, pursuance jurisdiction or officer under that no State can Court, acting authority, manner interfere therewith. any whether therefore, is, inquiry, creating enforcing lien for in this the collection does conflict with dеbt, case, the exclusive of the United States in admi- Courts and maritime causes. ralty art.
Section of United the Constitution States extends all the Government to admi- cases of judicial and maritime Section 9 of the'United States ralty jurisdiction. Act 1789 enacts Courts of United District States shall have exclusive all civil admi- causes of cognizance to suitors ralty jurisdiction, aof common law where the common remedy, law is com- it. petent give of the District Courts in and mari-
time cases is made exclusive. The lien to be enforced in sought case, is not a common It present fol- remedy. therefore lows that if manner enforcing provided the act, be a present the act admiralty, is void.
It is function of Courts of to enforce all liens vessels created virtue of the maritime and all such law, as are from that In dependent upon law. originate respect all such liens the United States District Courts and State exclusive, officers cannot there- interfere liens with, for the same cause have although been declared may State statutes, to enforce the same authority may to be conferred thereby attempted State Courts. This was the point in Hine v. Trevor (4 Wallace, 555), *10 and the determined point which has only the any bearing upon case. present
In the Moses to Taylor (4 Wallace, contract was be 411) performed seas. It upon was therefore a high and within contract, to redress BIRD v. STEAMBOAT by Ghoter, opinion held that thе therefore a breach. It was sustained by injuries the common only was exclusive, excepting admiralty jurisdiction the Act Congress' to States by reserved law jurisdiction (supra). to show relied Appellant
These are the
upon
to
of 1862 is
respect
the act
invalid,
case
show
present
An examination will
case.
present
same
not fall within the
principle.
does
for
furnished to
is
the demand
supplies
In
case
the present
No
at her home
(New York).
the dock
port
at
whilе
ship
lying
is
the maritime
a demand
for such
given
the vessel
upon
The Gen-
Ld. Raymond,
or this
country (2
England
Chusan,
Story,
eral
These cases show that, are credit goods whose the owner upon against delivered. have been presumed of a cred- the collection debt by
It is then case of simply authorities have the State plenary itor. this of cases Over class power. the rem- regulate
It is for the Statеs provide respectively that the creditor in their discretion. They may require edies of the common law,'or the course shall proceed according deem as it shall expedient. other mode provide may such of 1862 in act as question, They provide, may of the Defend- made a lien property debt upon any may lien as for the enforcement they ant, provide may material-men and in the case of mechanics’ shall deem proper, in othеr cases. liens, when inHhe ships, ju-
There is property nothing peculiar the same it from liability of a risdiction State, exempting to. be levied may as other subject Ships respect property owners, issued State execution in like manner. attachments issued seized upon for a lien the vessel of 1862 for creating act provides satis- and for its enforcement its the debt present *11 v. 17 JOSEPHINE.' opinion by Gbovek, faction. is no exercise of The lien admiralty jurisdiction. is created the lоcal law. we law, wholly by none. seen, gives
It the mere the State for the remedy provided collection by of a. debt out of the creditor the of the by debtor, and'no property more interferes with the of the exclusive District jurisdiction Courts than it had would the statute a lien provided for( upon other of the debtor. any property
Under rules Court 'adopted by of the United Supreme in States for the of the District Courts in government ad- those Courts entertain miralty cases, jurisdiction rеm, fouled the lien the State cases like the upon law, given present; and such was sustained the former jurisdiction Court (Peyroux v. Howard, 1 Pet. The Case of Steamer St. Lawrence, The exercise of Black, continued until when the rule was bv Court, changed by providing that, in cases like the should issue present, process only personam— thus the District Courts from their to enforce relieving duty liens created State such laws; liens be dealt with leaving the State authorities. does not for its depend rules validity Court but constitutional States the acts pass for.it.
powers providing have seen that liens under We State laws were held valid by its Court, rule prior have-^ change they not invalid it in case like the any present since.
But it is said that inasmuch as the Courts issue Admiralty. pro- in’ for cess debtor collection personam against debts,, one in thus like the entertain present jurisdiction,, the Act of all is exclusive, by Congress, other,, common law for the collection remedies, thereof. But I еxcept cases, the Act of think to embrace Congress only designed usual moré course- admiralty proceeded, according and not of that where it Court, rem, proceeded per- sonam. reason, is
There in former excluding BIRD v. STEAMBOAT *12 Grover, opinion avoid claims latter; conflicting in the viz. does not exist urisdictions. nnder j conflicting arising property ¿he the common from That this was object appears where in the State cases remedies the exercise from the States away, in rem. Tаking proceeds one. The no any advantage upon could confer other powers are simi- the act of 1862, under present State statutes great had under similar lar has not their been ques- validity number years, during thereby. acquired rights tioned. Important deter- is entitled to consideration but is not conclusive, conclusion, in all are valid is that they My their validity. mining virtue of rem, by cannot proceed the admiralty of the order an affirmance appealed This leads to maritime law. from.
Reversed. TIFFANY,
JOEL State Reporter.