The Lottawanna

Lottawinna, 558

Syllabus. Errors, the Court of and that the was not question presented to, nor was it decided the Court of Errors. by,

Jurisdiction shown unless it that some one appears of the did arise specified the State court and questions was decided question adversely assign, party error in this court.* ing

Judgment costs. affirmed, The Lottawanna. maritime law is the basis of the maritime general 1. Whilst law countries, States, only well of other so operative as as far United this, it is adopted usages the laws and thereof. country, of its It has no inherent force own. matters, especially approach such as particular merely municipal 2. In character, may received maritime differ in different countries law system as harmonious affecting general integrity without whole. lawyers system of maritime which was familiar to the general ' adopted, was- country when the Constitution and statesmen instrument, to, declared intended, referred when it was “ shall to all cases of extend judicial power of the United States adopted, became the jurisdiction.” Thus admiralty and maritime States, uniformly in the whole operating of the United maritime law country. admiralty juris- law and question limits of maritime 4. The as to true or act of no State law question, and exclusively judicial diction is may judicial power than the narrower Congresscan make it broader limits, is within those the law be. But what limits to determine those de- system, basis of the maritime law to assuming the of this usages in the maritime as law has received pends on been what competent been have country, legislation on such affect it. sources, con- giving these The decisions of this court illustrative Constitution, considered; especially struction to the laws and us, principles fail must resort these we and when governed. been have Williamson, How Peters, Randell, 392; Suydam v. Crowell ard, 440. Oct. 1874] of the ease.

Statement court, that this material-men settled, by adjudications repeated It is 6. in do not port to a vessel her home supplies furnishing repairs by lien vessel the maritime law upon acquire thereby United States as received in the supposed the framers the Constitution con- 7. Whilst it cannot unchanged, should remain the courts the maritime law templated that proper its it; only scope, declare it. If within change cannot can rules, procedure, other than those of is desired in its any change legislative department. must made commerce, to Semble, Congress, power regulate under the has au- 8. a on vessels of thority lien the United States in favor of to establish material-men, throughout country. uniform the whole cases, Congress has in which not exorcised particular power 9. In commerce, Constitution, which it invested regulating subject require in does not its nature the exclusive exer- and where the States, acts, Congress leg- until to continue power, cise of that islate. Hence, by the laws of a State in favor of for granted material-men 10. liens a in her in furnishing port necessaries to vessel home said State are valid, contract, furnish though the contract to is a same only by proceedings can be enforced in rem in the District Courts of the United States. on, in, having specific a or a right vested a fund Any person surplus 11. court, petition protection for the his may apply in under interest admiralty rule. forty-third 1871, steamboat, filed in against libels were for Separate wages for sal- home port, furnished at her and for the vage, supplies amount due Held, evidence, on the lien for mortgage. supplies had law; and, been, under the State if it had perfected not been that the could not be sustained prior change such recent libels for Held, also, rule. that the libel in the twelfth the mort- original as an proceeding, not be sustained gage could but that vessel, having petitioned surplus for the mortgagees, proceeds applied mortgage. have the same their were entitled Appeal the Circuit Court for the Dis- of Louisiana. trict was case thus: court,

In Smith* decided year General has that in the profession understood), respect generally (as or necessaries furnished repairs ship port she no lien unless it is State belongs, implied State; municipal declaring recognized * Wheaton, first and rulo XII. of the case. —The second Statement where the from that be different herein to rule to a in which case are furnished foreign ship; necessaries maritime law of the United States admitted itself for his a lien on security. party gives or all of the enacted this decision most States view of In for the of material-men a lien laws protection giving cases. of The the converse 1833, in the case Planter,*

In year was laid aud down, rule in The Smith process General was used and vessel in her home port supported, against a lien in the case. the State giving in of acts of court, 1844, pursuance In acting Congress rules of in the courts it to authorized adopt practice which in causes of and maritime States of the United declared as adhering practice (and. jurisdiction† rule cases adopted in the mentioned), following proper of practice:

“Rule XII. for or other supplies, repairs, “In all suits material-men by in or for a a ship foreign port, for a foreign ship, necessaries rem, in or ship freight libellant may against proceed and the like and owner alone personam; the master against of domestic to cases where shall ships, in rem apply proceeding for to material-men re- a lien given supplies, the local law by necessaries.” and other pairs, new rule twelfth was 1859, adopted, the 1st May,

On above It for the one thus: given. as a substitute “Rule XII. “ for or or material-men, other suits by repairs, In all for a or ship for a foreign ship, foreign port, necessaries ~em, freight proceed against libellant like alone in And the personam. or owner the master against rem, not in shall in cases of but apply in personam, proceedings or other for necessaries.” repairs, ships supplies, domestic Peters, Howard, Peyroux v. the name 7 under Reported 275), 23d, 8th, Large, August at Hay (1 Stat. Acts of 516). Id. (5 Oct. , The Lottawanna.

Statement of the case. —Particular case. for this latter rule reasons for the substitution J., case of The in the former one are stated O. Taney, by Lawrence,* in some eases have been that Steamer St. them, on State laws and the constructions liens, put giving State harmonize with courts, were found not to prin embarrassed code, and rules of the maritime ciples Federal courts them. applying

In filed a this state of William and another Doyle things, libel in for the Dis- the District Court of United States abovementioned, June, on the Louisiana, day trict 10th Lottawana, New 1871, Orleans, the steamer against seized, libels of inter- mariners’ The vessel wages. being some for were filed various vention afterwards parties, services, some for mariners’ some for sup- wages, salvage of New furnished materials, port plies, Orleans, use of steamer. On 20th for the day administratrix, 1871, Catharine June, Rodd, together Orleans, filed of New several commercial firms city set libel of intervention up mortgage owner, on the 20th of vessel, them the May, given on the the custom-house 22d recorded in 1871, duly notes of various to secure the of payment promissory May, owner, said said libellants date, the same by given $14,000. than and to more amounting had been to the steamer, 16th May, engaged up Rivers, and Red between the river trade oil Mississippi and was laid for Jefferson, Texas, up and New Orleans the claims Most of on that day. at New Orleans repairs of the mort- before date and arose for supplies wages steamer was afterwards. The some arose gage, although costs, of sale, after $7500, and, expenses sold for deducting admitted tO' were of mariners (which and wages salvage $4644.42, a there remained surplus have preference), rendered a decree District Court, February which the the 1st March decreed on 26th, 1872, following, signed * Black, VOL. XXI. Privilege set up.

Statement the case.— creditors, the exclu- t'o rata to to be pro mortgage paid of the claims for sion repairs supplies. about two after the 1872, months

On 6th May, a this court rendered, decree was promulgated yet finally It was in these words: twelfth rule admiralty. third other for or or material-men repairs “In all suits by supplies necessaries, against the libellant may proceed owner alone in rem, per- the master freight against sonam.” 1872, the above- June, on the In this state of 3d things, was reversed by

mentioned decree of District Court ivas decreed to be and the Court, surplus Circuit appeal, rata to the claimants supplies, pro paid creditors; the amount not being exclusion mortgage n sufficient in full. From the either of creditors class pay an w7astaken to this court. decree latter appeal therefore, appeal, presented principal question on her at her credit, to vessel was whether furnishing created a maritime needful repairs home port, of a mort- lien would take did, such precedence If it lien. de- for the money generally, payment, given gage did the decree to be not, affirmed. If cree must be it. could sustain themselves on unless reversed; appellees n someother ground. existed in asserted what other they they

Such grounds fact, of Louisiana wit, to be alleged claims them a for their lien on giving had “privilege” n thevessel lieu, her though strictly proceeds, bound enforce. court was one, the case was said subject ap- that part [On to be counsel thus: pellant’s 1869, ordains of Louisiana :*

The constitution n shall hereafter affectthird or privilege parties, “No mortgage where be the in the affected property recorded parish unless is situated.”

* Article 123. Oct. 1874.] -Lottawanna. The of our law. sources in of the lien.—The support Argument says: The Civil Code Louisiana Revised on debts are the privileges 3237. following “Article other vessels: price ships “ materials, furnished and to work who have due to to those Sums sellers: construction, never a voyage, if vessel has made men in the employed victuals, armament, labor, repairing, supplies, due for and those to creditors equipment.’ “ valid third persons against 3273. Privileges Article the act or evidence of indebt- from date of the recording edness, by law. provided “ effect third No shall have against privilege Article law, in recorded, required by unless in persons manner is situated. be affected where the parish property or If be a notarial or the mortgage privilege “Article . be recorded. . . same not in act, same shall public If his mortgage claiming privilege, agent, writing, person fact, must make affi- having knowledge or some person amount based, which it davit of all facts on stating iii facts, shall recorded which affidavit and all the necessary as other acts mortgage privilege.”] mortgage-book record shown transcript. No of mortgage Term, at 1873, twice once December The case was argued, A. Semmes, appellant, T. J. Messrs. J. Grow Mr. for term, at this Mr. now, and M. Day, appellees; Jj. for B,. Groio,> the J. A. appel- Mr. Mott, appellant, for for Goodrich, lien W. lees, and Mr. W. favor for and Mr. home William Allan vessel her port, furnished to such Boardman, lien. opposition Mr. Andrew Butler lien, of such or in favor was thus contended support It below :* the ruling to the principal I. As question. the case relied always Smith against General is.

lien. opinion Benedict, J., an appellee was submitted the brief With District, Crescent, sustaining in the case of The York the New ship. argument given domestic Much of now is from against a materials that document. The Lottawanna. admiralty our law. the lien. —The sources of

Argument support of deckled. That ease 1. wrongly lieu, of admiralty In question determining to base for tbe must resort admiralty principles of courts neither to the rules decisions its conclusion different of the nor to the law common statutory regulations law maritime States, but to of the United States general is administered nations, which, comity according Marshall, C. J.: Says all courts admiralty.* by “ maritime, as it. law, an,d' admiralty In eases the admiralty as- to the cases our courts existed for is has ages, applied arise.” J.: Nelson, Says court, for the pur-

“The a maritime instituted of the sea.” administering pose authorities, and with the In these object harmony contained the Consti admiralty jurisdiction grant of tbe also the States, tution United example following this we law for court,† set turn maritime general law of this ancient of law there is case. In that body rule that necessaries imbedded furnished found general bind the herself as a From ship ship party. contracting law, as it exists in the maritime a domestic rule, general Benedict: not excepted. Says ship ‡ law, law, maritime “The civil and.the general particular to all codes, ships extend this lien or privilege and domestic without distinction between vessels, foreign vessels.” sound reason exists our should depart

No country why the rule of the The foundation of this rule admiralty. maintain from in the necessities of lies These navigation. vicissi the same characteristics. The to age age all neces tudes which vessels navigation engaged some wants method which the exposed, sarily compels Patriot, L., p. 1 A. M. 77. Wallace, Wright, Norwich Company Admiralty, § ‡ Oct. law. sources our lien. —The support

Argument has been result That supplied. promptly value the whole best obtained making to be found debt contracted for any lawfully an available security ship the mistake to It is a suppose her wants. relieve to law is to of the maritime protect of the lien object principal is real Its object ships. of those interest dealing the obtain at time to any the place enable ship to the end that to to on, and thus get in case of necessity, relief and that the merchant jeoparded, venture the to secured The thrive. benefit sought commerce material-man. In the absence not to the to the ship, benefit that the material-man could rule it is manifest of such lieu common-law acquired by retaining resort must often whence disastrous results of the ship, possession course was of A rule ground resting follow. ne material-man, to the demand made applicable as the is in most cases as services whose cogent for cessity it came or a wharf. Therefore, a crew, pilot-, need of law, that the material-man to be be understood general of necessaries to a lieu ship, furnishing acquired was the declaration Such domestic foreign. whether rule as furnished which in Roman law, ports civil barbarian. as for the ship well for Roman and such codes, the maritime the declaration Sucb when those ordinance. And great rule declared is in to, the reference no referred proper law are systems law known law,* but local general throughout sense to world, including, long period, England. civilized said, as wo have can be then, reason, given sufficient No an to this rule domestic vessels exception for making the other considerations States. Some press strongly United such an is to To admit exception admiralty give way. a law different States from the courts United general in the Constitution, whereas the law, by- maritime provision was in- created, courts were which the virtue of administer- for the sole courts purpose tended provide Howard, Hammond, Wallace, 452; Vance, Dupont Maggie J., Wallace, Seneca, 3d Jr. 168; Washington, The Lotta wanna.

Argument of the lien. —The support sources of our law. maritime law. The maritime law ing general part nations, the law of one of the beauties which is its great has been declared to be its universality. Uniformity essence. code The worst maritime would bo one which should be dictated interest and influenced separate pe- culiar manner one of only people.

Further. The character of the commerce which peculiar and vessels United States—there is ships engages no such as a vessel of a State—affords additional thing reason the law vessels why ships respecting should be uniform at the States, United throughout same time in with the For law. harmony in our we have inland dif- seas, country great bordering ferent States of the Union, with laws, different also on which are vessels territory, owned foreign by by navigable residents of different States, and also vessels by foreign ¥e also have rivers whose waters proper. long navigable are vexed the keels of vessels, well as domestic by foreign for the most on routes from to State, State but engaged part not which extend the mouths infrequently voyages beyond sea, of rivers to the and thence all the corners of the open In such a earth. in no the laws navigation harmony gov- the the vessel, course of a even, erning during single voyage can secured resort to laws or to by State the-decisions of the State tribunals. For such a a maritime law— country, same in all the States—rendered uniform the decisions by one court of in high appellate admiralty harmony —and with the maritime law the world—a law not general rigid reason of statutory broad, flexible, but by provisions, common law of the seas, becomes of the first just impor- —a ; tance and for such a of law becomes necessity system when we and re- imperious, approach subject supplies at vessel, and at moment, any pairs, auy place, may forthwith, where she compelled procure perish lies. did, That serious not arise from the difficulty long ago, want of such a law for the and vessels of the United ships States, is in measure to the decision all great owing vessels the United States are vessels when'without foreign Oct. 1874.1 overruled.

Argument General Smith support in of the Hen.—The owner of the residence limits wherein the State to be. happens fact that views well-known

These from the derive support was doctrine of The Smith announcement of the General rt was which, followed States far as statutes of the pos the rule do, sible for States to reinstated maritime than of the Union a In more States law. twenty lien domestic vessels for upon laws; too, to be and this, created local with attempted be resorted full that the courts of could knowledge created, the enforcement of the lien so as indeed to for they exclusion of State tribunals some were, almost of the State of New York reports prior places. rule, show but few twelfth adjudica very change ten twelve tions—some subject by perhaps upon— as is courts, while, notorious, State District Court of was crowded States New York United port there to secure the benefits actions material-men seeking law of the maritime lien State. of a by enforcing were not main statutes, States, so used many only These but were from time to statute-books, tained law, more time rendered nearly analogous York, of New the act of 1862, State until ship-owning lien to the builders of and to extended a ste ships only for the but effect created State vedores, plain of of to the vessels owned citizens securing purpose maritime the rule the benefits of of law. State the rule of to of the maritime The absence any repugnance and it is that no shown, is thus believed objection clearly to the courts of exists admiralty surrendering anywhere of liens whole domestic the United States the subject upon vessels.* 1872, ride spoken directly, 2. Aside of twelfth of which,in are decisions the overthrow Supreme effect,

there Court The Smith. authority General * Hamill, Appeals, remarks of Court of Brookman v. 42 New See York York, 562. New 568 Ct wanna. Lotta The

Argument of the lien. —The General Smith overruled. support case, in that the foundation The reason relied on was vessels, domestic aud distinction between foreign It that the law such distinction.* of England recognized that in the distinction be remarked in England passing forced the courts admiralty by prohibition upon considerations law, common issued the courts of has not been often and that it policy England, of law that a rule would advance circumstance particular- has held to be a reason for interests of beeu England, of the rule the courts of the United States. adoption we submit that considerations, since Waiving,-however, The this court has on more than one Smith occasion General declared that the doctrines of ad England, respect do not furnish for the determinations of authority miralty, courts of this The reason country.† for the admiralty The in the case of decision General Smith been thus having decisions, late of the case is repudiated by authority gone. This court has declared Further. expressly grant “ must held to mean all

of the Constitution such cases of as were character cognizable admiralty at time the of the States Constitution was courts since Now, Mr. F. C. argument adopted.”‡ Loring, and what he Dunham,§ there v. Company showed, in Insurance courts of the Colonies it is dispute beyond liens for to enforce did entertain furnished actions domestic vessels. ease The than this. In very more Lottawanna, But J., last term,|| Clifford, as at the and so lately delivering this ivilhout says opinion reference —and rule follows: 1872—as the new'twelfth “ existed ever has since the old Much embarrassment twelfth as the new rule rule was makes no repealed, pro J., Clark, Woodbury, Waring Howard, is said v. 5 what 451. See Howard, Clark, 451; Magnolia, 299, The v. 5 20 Id. Waring 341; The China, Wallace, Chief, 451; Id. 69. 7 Genesee Wallace, Clark, Belfast, 636; Waring Howard, ‡ Wallace, 20 Id. 219. || 11§ Oct. 569 Lotta The wanna. in

Argument support of the lien. —Rule XII of 1872. of contracts and sup vision enforce the repairs payment libel in furnished to domestic a personam. ships, except by plies have overcome the been made to Repeated judicial attempts of which have because satisfactory, none difficulty, proved in a failed to a remedy admiralty by proceeding provide time, long been felt for a Inconveniences kind rem. have de come to whether the until the benchand the bar have doubt re in contract for lien does not arise a cision a maritime correct, is it a furnished to domestic ship pairs supplies contract, is a as plainly that the contract just is clear to a foreign the contract to furnish repairs supplies other than that in of State a domestic a port ship ship even Such a remedy given which belongs.* ship were furnished case, and supplies in the latter unless same to see difficult why the credit ship, on if in case the repairs not be the former remedy may given These the master on the same obtained were terms.† to create serious have had the considerations other many effect than fifty decisionmade more years doubtsas the correctnessof lien doesnot that a maritime arise The General Smith ago, ‡ case.” such a rule has ike 3. The 1872 of modification twelfth position question. changed greatly declared the twelfth rule recognized Originally was It based two The Smith. upon in the ease of General of the United maritime law 1st. That propositions: vessel existed favor of a a domestic no lien upon States law could material- material-man; 2d. That local give domestic be enforced vessel, man a lien might admiralty. courts wps second of these withdrawn In propositions 1858 the amendment of first 1872 rule, stands, now authorizes a the rule made to As disappear. an action in rem domestic to institute material-man against alike. foreign 143, 148. Shipping, Abbott Lawrence, Id.; Review, ; Black, 529; 612 The St. 5 American Law 7 1 Abbott, 78; Belfast, Wallace, Harrison, Reports, United States 645, 646. Wheaton, ‡ The Lottawanna. of

Argument support in of the lien. —Law Louisiana. The as overrules the decision in the rule, amended, thus itself authoritative ease of The in an Smith, General made between declaration that the distinction heretofore It does can hardly and domestic not exist. ships foreign to declare by Court intended the Supreme supposed the domestic rule, a material-man could proceed against same leave it to be decided rem, at the time open can it course be futile. Nor that such must of proceeding intended to Court be supposed Supreme give lien cre a not law. thus rule before existing by Any right be a new out would process, ated right arising all Such course, acquired. previously subject, rights lien, different indeed a maritime would very arise out but out the con process, does is made the same in the as the rule tract. And right such an vessel, of a as of a domestic under case foreign seem from the law of the rule would to sweep standing doctrine of maritime so liens, United States the whole But how can an material men. authorization far regards a rule of if, in rem be process, proceeding simply “ in rem is to effect to a Curtis, J., give proceeding says ex either ex contractuor maritime lien contractu, arising quasi “ ex delicto the lien and the ex delictoor ?”* If pro quasi one in rem are where exists the other correlative, ceeding bemay taken.”† II. subsidiary question special [As —that as the under the law of Louisiana —it argued

privilege what was said understood it, notwithstanding reporter — Louisiana, hypothecations code the constitution to the made laws and other vesselswere ships according whatever cases those and that in usages commerce, usagesof of a the validity hypothecation and laws would recognize and in it, also the code of Louisiana vessel, recognized was less in- however, This question, none other. special on than principal sisted one.] Curtis, Mayurka, Wallace, Bridge, 6 The Rook Island Oct. court.—General observations.

Opinion of the delivered court. opinion Mr. BRADLEY Justice were decided raised this case questions principal lien more than fifty years ago court adversely Wheaton, in 4 Smith, of The General reported the case to, since ex has ever been adhered that decision 488, and A District solemn some of the Courts. cept occasionally so commercial relied on by community long judgment law of the not to land, and the as a rule of ought property If, however, reasous. cogent very overruled except the new and with in the investigation, lights progress the whole have thrown of maritime been upon subject a more ratioual view of the law admiralty jurisdiction, demands an adverse order to ruling preserve question in the consistencj7 general system, harmony logical if no evil of a court might, perhaps, consequences glaring feel were constrained to it. ensue, character likely adopt we exists, But if no such to-permit necessity ought any love mere or of scientific com expediency consideration draw us into substantial of the re change pleteness, additional which has been ceived law. ex security sale and on to bills of vessels tended mortgages ships the act for them in the since the cus passage recording and the confidence with which tom-house; purchasers have invested therein under the money existing mortgagees have on this of decisions subject, placed course large at undue if those hazard, decisions amount property may cause, without disturbed. grave lightly, are which we asked to overrule on The ground judg- case of The Smith is, General ment by gen- those who furnish law, maritime necessary materials, eral vessel, to a her credit, have repairs, therefor, as well when furnished such a vessel as furnished home if*foreign port, her when port bound effect courts to that give lien. assumes that maritime

The proposition on the and is courts case, United binding governs States. of the court. —The sources our law. it is the maritime law

But hardly necessary argue as law in is is far adopted so operative any country only of that In this it is the laws and country. usages respect law the laws of which have the war, like international further are ac- in no than any effect of law country such; or, like ease of civil and received cepted basis of most but which laws, forms the law, European in each state so far as it is only adopted of law has the force as are deemed ex- modifications therein, law the several of the common adoption pedient. ah also It presents this Union case. analogous States laws; but modified as each sees State basis of all law is more followed Perhaps uniformly fit. than the civil and common laws are nations commercial like those But, however laws, fixed, use them. who those code of theoretical maritime law beneficial definite, and have so far.the effect of law in it can only be, But the actual it is have. maritime as permitted country said to have a fixed and definite form as can hardly law be' within its embraced may scope. all the subjects mass maritime of law the it is true great Whilst in each countries, yet, in all commercial country, saíne pe- as some in of the or rules, exist either culiarities is this them. the case on the- Especially of mode enforcing law, of the where it in comes contact boundaries outside the local or into law of municipal shades off the* with, its own merchants or only affects country particular to each other. in matters Whereas, relations in their people received commonly foreigner, stranger affecting world is more commercial ob- assiduously whole it should be. No one doubts that as, in justice, served— its own maritime code. France may adopt nation .every another; third; the United States a one; England adopt world, the commercial of bound to- convenience still, relations of trade and intercourse, mutual itas is, by gether, essential wherein in all those rela- that, things demands there should be a uniform law contact, them bring tions Hence the reason justice. adoption natural founded Oct. a wan na. The Lott admiralty law.

Opinion of sources of our the court.—The all nations own (our commercial general included) all their mari- maritime law-as the basis and groundwork time no nation But precluded regards.itself regulations. modifications suited to its from occasional locality making institutions, of its own especially people genius local and conse- matters that are merely municipal found, other nations. It will be and do affect not quence therefore, maritime codes Swe- France, England, are not one and the same and other den, countries, every there is a that whilst correspondence but general particular; the fact that each them adopts between arising mari- mass of the essential general great principles, shades basis of its there time law, system, varying cli- territories, difi’erence respective corresponding each mate, country respectively. people genius maritime not as code law, Each state having adopts force, but as its or inherent proprio vigore, any independent as it sees with such modifications and law, own qualifications case, in each it be- and thus fit. Thus adopted qualified law the nation that comes the particular adopts maritime would it. And without voluntary adoption that, And thus from the happens, practice law. general law the the same commercial nations making their maritime systems, respective basis groundwork received mass of maritime law which thus the great comes be the common common, these nations in law of world. correct, if shows law, of the maritime

This account plainly such as matters, in especially approach that particular character, the received maritime merely municipal .may in- countries without in different differ affecting general a harmonious whole. The govern- system tegrity to its citizens, of one country willing, give ment may at her home where port a ship who provisions supply whilst that of a lien on the resides, ship; owner himself view as to the take contrary expedi- another country in The difference between them a rule. such ency citizens, their own in each case, only that concerns matter Or. [Sap. of our law. of the court. —The sources and consistency cannot affect seriously harmony and observes. law which each adopts common maritime view of the does not This subject slightest degree due to that detract from the proper respect authority such sea, which has venerable law of the been subject countries; all encomiums from the ablest high jurists places just grounds upon merely upon logical it is and with received which qualifications, accepted, proper force of law all countries. with the binding therefore, that maritime The proposition, general under lien is in cases of kind now consider- law a given does unless it not advance ation, step, argument single be in accordance with the maritime law as ac- be shown to It has and received United States. certainly cepted more than maritime law of two not been the England whether it is the maritime law of this centuries past; and answered which are not questions country depends treatises on turning by simply ordinary European or codes or ordinances law, maritime particular any country. law of own,

That we have a maritime our operative the United cannot be States, doubted. throughout maritime law which was familiar to the system when and statesmen Constitution lawyers country was most intended and referred to certainly was adopted, wfjs declaimedin instrument judicial when it States shall extend “to all cases of ad the United power But what criterion jurisdiction.” miralty limits of the law thus to ascertain are we precise Constitution does not define it. It does ? adopted it w7asintended to embrace the entire mari whether declare treatises, the limited .law as only expounded time received system restricted England, of both of as was modification these accepted lastly, as law in this Nor does the Con country. and recognized draw the line between mari boundary attempt stitution law; does it down and local nor criterion lay time law It assumes the mean- boundary. for ascertaining Oct. admiralty our law. court. —The sources of “ is and maritime jurisdiction” of the phrase

ing as it does well understood. It treats this matter cognate “ cases of common and when ones speaks equity, “ without law,” lawin and or of suits at common equity,” and un- known terms, those them to be defining assuming derstood.

One the Constitution however, thing, unquestionable; have with, must referred to a of law coextensive system the whole It in, uniformly certainly operating country. could not have been the intention the rules to place limits maritime law under the disposal regulation the several would the uni- States, have defeated at which the aimed on Constitution formity consistency all commercial character the inter- subjects affecting course of the States with each other states. or with foreign is discussed with question felicity judgment great Justice Chief the court Taney, delivering opinion Lawrence,* in the case The he St. where “Judicial says: in all cases of and maritime power, jurisdiction, the Constitution to the Federal delegated government terms, courts of this character had then been general in all established commercial and differ nations, however, in different countries materially ing, powers and duties confided to them; the extent of the jurisdiction conferred much character of the depending very in which created; were this circum government with the terms of the stance, rendered dif grant, to define the exact limits of its ficult in the United power This was increased States. char difficulty complex our acter of where and distinct government, separate specified are exercised the United States aud sovereignty powers of each other within State the same terri independently limits. Aud the torial of the decisions of the reports has will show often been before subject it, and care considered, without able to fix with its fully being precision boundaries; but definite no State law can certainly enlarge 526, Black,

Opinion admiralty source our of the court. —The law. make uor can or rule of court it, an act Congress determine to its broader thau the judicial power may true be ascertained aby limits. And this to boundary words used reasonable construction of the just instru- the whole taken with Constitution, connection and maritime ment, and the which admiralty purposes the Federal jurisdiction to government.” granted felt itself this court has Guided sound these principles, as at extend- jurisdiction liberty recognize which, jealousy to localities ing subjects but to it in common were England, law, prohibited reason when applied' to it on every fairly ground belong its ex- of this country, circumstances peculiar rivers, and its seas, its territories, tended inland navigable law had as narrow restrictions of English especially even in Atlantic, side of the colonial never on this prevailed times. law true limits of maritime as to the question as Chief Justice

admiralty jurisdiction undoubtedly, Taney law intimates, no State question, exclusively judicial broader, can make it or act may (it added) Congress determine than the those narrower, judicial may power limits, what law is within those be. But as- limits be the maritime basis of the suming has been received law in what as depends- sy.stem, this and on such country, legislation usages it. have been affect competent . what the maritime law of ascertain, therefore, To French, to read the German, it is is, enough country works on the or the codes Italian, subject, other foreign we must have framed; but to our have which they regard constitution, and ad- legislation; history, usages, own legal this court The decisions of illustrative as well. judications laws sources, and construction of these giving the. considered; and to be when these are especially Constitution which they we resort to the have us, must principles fail been governed. we must remember cannot always

But. Oct. The Lottawanna. law. court. —The of our sources If, its within Ituv,

make the it can declare it. proper only rules, than those in its other is desired scope, any change be made depart- must procedure, legislative that the framers of Con- cannot ment. It be supposed remain the law should forever stitution contemplated has under the undoubtedly authority unalterable. Congress if no to introduce other, commercial power, changes law, of the maritime to be needed. The scope likely coterminous, it is are not and that of commercial regulation of embraces much the latter true, portion but the largest has former. it Under covered reg- by Congress ground enrolment, license, and of ulated nationality registry, vessels; sale method of bills of and and recording ships seamen; thereon; duties of rights and mortgages for the of the of limitations shipowners neg- responsibility crews; of and misconduct their captains ligence with, of a character And other maritime. many things truly now consideration, under question regard namely, material-men in of reference re- rights there does furnished to a vessel her home port, pairs reason seem to be to doubt that any great Congress might rule for the whole of uniform though, adopt country, should this will be a matter course, for consideration ever be for adjudication. directly presented question Nelson, remarks in de On of Mr. Justice subject this court in White'sBank Smith* opinion livering effect of act established the validity respect (which vessels in the on custom recording mortgages ing He are vessels of or pertinent. “Ships says: house), are States creatures legislation United Congress. such, can be denominated be entitled to the bene None or enrolled fits or those thereof, except registered privileges 1789; 1st, act of and those which, according September March, shall be en 1793, after the last day registered the act December, 1792, of 31st rolled pursuance a citizen or citizens of the owned United must be wholly * Wallace, 655, 656. VOL. XXI. Lott a The wanna. mortgago. the court. —No valid and to commanded citizen of the same.” . . .

States, “ were, as it this created, species having prop Congress its chief value under the and conferred power erty, we commerce, in the Constitution perceive regulate given doubt but that this reason for serious no entertaining be extended to the security protection power title of all aud therein. persons judicial rights dealing to have taken this This seems direction.” mind generally Ætna affirmed Aldrich v. Company.* case subsequently however, Be whether this, may, power is not to amend the law on this is or sufficient sub- Congress this court is bound to de- amendment desirable), ject (if now Aud as it to the mari- clare the law stauds. according and received in this we feel law as country, time accepted such lien exists as that no claimed bound declare this court adjudications case. the'appellees referred which it is to, review, before unnecessary aud we no see sufficient conclusive Subject; ground theni. for disturbing

This question case. disposes principal the that But it is the of Lou- alleged by appellees have for their claims, isiana them a they privilege giving on and her the lien the vessel that court was proceeds; in lien their behalf, bound to. this enforce though strictly a maritime lien. the record, however,

On that the examining appears never caused their lien had re- to be (if one) appellees they to the State corded of law. requirements according By article of the constitution the.one twenty-third hundred “ it is in declared that Louisiana, 1869, of no mort- adopted affect third hereafter unless shall parties, privilege gage be to affected is in the where recorded parish property n an And act of the since passed legislature, situated.” terms of the Constitutional time, provision. very adopts if be not in a further And act provides privilege facts on which it based must stated in an writing, * Wallace, 491. Oct. í.] rule of court. —Twelfth these None of requi which must recorded.*

affidavit, claimed under sites no lien can be been performed, having the State law. on this the case

But if there were doubt any subject, is met another difficulty. admiralty appellees en- rule District Courts 1859, precluded in domestic rem ships tertaining against proceedings in until necessaries, was force or other supplies, repairs, Now, when rule was 6tb, 1872, the new May promulgated. this case commenced the District Court a was in year pre- in was vious to and final the District Court this, judgment rendered two months It true judg- previous. was until not rendered Court, ment the Circuit appeal, 1872; if new rule had at that June, but 3d day court, been the attention could time brought in then its have been case position. applied hardly had been based and other All the proceedings shaped upon and not the existence theories, grounds to the other have been just would not parties rule. It iu which was not existence when a rule to them apply on the litigation. were carrying to, rule referred recent As to the change that it intended remove isit sufficient say, simply embarrassments of institut- way all obstructions rem iu cases where liens exist law, all proceedings ing course, which, new lien, to create and not any since a lien is a event, right not do prop- could mere matter of procedure. and not erty, and had rule been not stood perfected, Had the that have heretofore principles governed way, Courts juris District exercising practice sanctioned and which been repeatedly by have diction, authorized the material-men have would court, undoubtedly its vessel or seems proceeds.† libel file a It against * 3273, 3274, Code, Articles Civil Revised Howard, Wheaton, Peters, 438; Peyroux v. Smith, 4 The General Lawrence, Black, 175; St. Phœbus, 11 The Id. 324; The Orleans Ct, [Sap. The Lottawanna. rule of tho court. —Twelfth of 1872. tó in that so settled our jurisprudence long Congress does not of ma interpose subject, rights regulate in her homo terial-men necessaries to vessel furnishing each State State port by in may regulated legislation. true, it is cannot exclude tho contract for furnish laws, State necessaries from domain of admiralty jurisdic ing tion, is a maritime alter contract, for it cannot they nor can confer it limits of that jurisdiction; upon enable so as to them to in rent for the State courts proceed created for laws, of liens such State enforcement conferred the District Courts the United exclusively can authorize enforcement thereof States. They only remedies, or as are common-law such remedies equiva the District Courts lent But United States thereto. as a one, of the contract maritime may jurisdiction having even when for its created enforce liens security, given laws.* be somewhat anoma tlie State practice lous, has existed from the of the bntit origin government,- and, fact that superinduced by perhaps, originally Constitution, liens of this sort to the adoption prior been State laws had enforced the State courts Created by were courts those suc of admiralty; immediately States, the District Courts United and in ceeded by instances the the State court was several transferred judge it was. Court, natural, Fed District infancy on commercial for the latter eral courts subjects, legislation over same classes of eases, jurisdiction to entertain had done, as the State courts without due re ¿Very respect new which tho had relations States assumed gard law and For towards the admiralty jurisdiction. 1784, Pennsylvania passed legislature example, concerned fit persons building, allowing repairing, vessels for a to sue in admi Out, furnishing voyage, ting cases, Two those of The as mariners sue wages. ralty, law, under this Collier, and Enterprise,arising coming reported Pennsylvania, before the admiralty supra. Cases Oct. wanna. The Lott Congress desirable. Opinion of court. —Action .the cases No doubt other works.* Ilopkinson’s Judge States. of other the courts same kind occurred of the have been practice, whatever But, origin on the soundest not it was based whether principles,' is to settled, and it now too question late became ]t firmly its Validity. - n the often true the inconveniences It is arising in- liens, laws such State intricate conflicting creating to 1858, December Terrh, this court in duced abrogate which allowed' of the twelfth rule portion domestic in rem ships agaiust proceedings' to in the home allow port, furnished proceed- we such cases. But have liow re- in-personamonly ings 1844, we have it or, rather, stored the rule of made material-men terms, iii all eases their optioh its giving in rem or in personam. either Of course this proceed rule cannot avail where no lien exists; modification matter whore one does no what exist, law, but removes credit rem, to a if all obstacles proceeding given Vessel. would he far more to have

It undoubtedly satisfactory liens, but until law sueh a uniform bé regulating to have the the author- adopted (supposing Cotigress power) on the he States seenis to con- subject legislate ity course of decisions. uniform ceded by there is an extensive field of Indeed, border quite legisla-t commercial local in tion on subjects (generally character) until State laws inter- which nitty regulated by Congress excludes further State . Pilot- thereby legislation. poses, in this far So as Con- subjects is one category. itgc its exclusive) supreme has authority interposed, gress so, matter it has not dono is'still left to where but of State laws. And exercise yet regulation has not withdrawn pilotage States power regulate cannot withdraw from thé adiiii- indeed, and, the subject, 3, pp. 131, 171. Volume [8up. Bemedy rule 43. under of tho court. — And, course, Courts.* District jurisdiction rally State intimated, legislatures before this jurisdiction at time terminated by in such cases is to be subject cases this is not In some the control. Congress assuming consideration, under so as in in the one desirable but others, be; tó it is intervene, if has the greatly Congress power to have the would be better It desired that it so. should.do law of country subject regulated con evils than laws. ..The State arising by differing several States forcibly lien laws passed flicting The Law ease of St. set forth Chief Justice Taney existence of It be added before cited. rence, commer of our with the is in accord spirit secret liens which the liens ques uniform law by cial and a usages, time to be a reasonable placed within tion should be required and other like record in the custom-house mortgages, be of would advantage wise great properly regulated, business community. if in which the is another mode they

But there appellees, into the District Court and could come lien, a valid had for the thereof, benefit by petition ap namely, claim the vessel to the pay proceeds surplus plication rule. under the debts, ment of their admiralty forty-third to all has to distribute surplus The couTt power proceeds therein, interest in the order who vested those can show how matter their claims several no of their priorities, origin distribution in the admi of such a The propriety ated.† that the court would has been on the ralty questioned ground But it draw to itself equity jurisdiction.‡ thereby exercised commonly nearly wholesome jurisdiction very distribute a fund in its courts, all pos rightfully superior it; entitled who are there session to those legally courts should not do no sound reason why admiralty Howard, 299; Wardens, McNiel, Ex parte 13 v. Port Wal- Cooley lace, 236. Howard, Babbidge, 19 Schuchardt Council, 111. Privy Knapp’s Neptune, ‡ Oct. Clifford, J., dissenting. be so should require

same. If a complicated .ease Court could the District of a court equity, interposition trib refer the to a more act, parties competent refuse unal.* themselves have no maritime

In this case the appellants an debt not lien, to secure but'merely ordinary mortgage therefore, no have founded on a maritime contract. They, under the court, except standing forty-third above rule, in the manner Their libel indicated. inadmissible, even under the rule as recently But before the final decree filed a petition modilied.f for the as there is no and, question surplus proceeds, law, case about fraudulent under the preference Bankrupt those of entitled to towards satisfaction proceeds their mortgage. reversed,

Decree the remanded, record with instruc- tions to enter decree favor the appellants, conformity opinion. with this

In CLIFFORD, Mr. Justice dissenting: sometimes of an imbittered ex- Controversy, character, the isted in the courts of parent th'e country ju- respecting risdiction the for a the admiralty before century American Colonies from that separated country pro- claimed their Differences also independence. opinion the have existed here as to extent of that proper jurisdiction ever since the of the Federal as evi- Constitution, adoption denced decisions of Court at different Supreme- in our periods judicial history. at was made an limit

Attempt early period jurisdic- tide-waters, of the courts to tion and to exclude admiralty its exercise waters within the aof altogether body the waters whether were or were affected county, the ebb and flow of tide. decision to the effect Express had no even jurisdiction, in a suit for admiralty 48-66, See in 1 Admiralty, pp. cases reviewed Conklin’s 2d ed. Jay, Howard, John Ct Clifford, J., dissenting. of The exc was made case Jefferson,* seamen’s wages, the service is where performed in eases substantially ept within ebb sea waters arid flow cr upon1 upon tide. at that courts period

Jurisdiction case where the did not extend com parent country in a trial remedy mon-law courts could parties by- give was that the clause here for time jury, theory long ninth which saves section Act Judiciary where the to a common-law com remedy, Suitors right it, excluded all cases from the mon competent give the cause courts if of action jurisdiction or accrued comilalus. Protracted corpus acqui arose infra it for a time the force of law, in that theory escence gave was until the directly Supreme question presented whole overturned in Court, when the theory completely action, cause whether tort or contract, whore all cases done or service tidew to acts had respect performed aters.† of a character arose some of the

Doubts perplexing were contracts whether cognizable circuits affreightment culminated in an absolute which ultimately the admiralty, in all such cases. Wide differ denial jurisdiction in existed, and order to the subject ences of opiniou upon was to Su settlement presented final question its aud in its whole Court length broadth.‡ preme side, in on either was left undone which case, Nothing a skilful and indefati- could accomplished by argument one selected research. Two of the propositions, gable to illustrate the nature of side, will serve the conten- each the wide of the discussion. range By-the appel- tion that the District Courts had it was insisted no jurisdic- lants because it was made on contract, such a land, over tion for the of of county', transportation body goods within * Wheaton, 428. Clarke, Howard, Waring v. Lexington, 6 Id. 392. ‡ Oct. J., Clifford, dissenting. of landlocked

in a inland waters described route over termi- voyage whole and because contemplated way, con- that, to the appellees nated terree. Opposed fauces infra whether of contract the question tended that all eases in nature mari- is in its contract service to performed contract time, and that in all eases maritime proceed- of the libel- be in rem or in at personam, ing may option Court but the followed, lant. Elaborate discussion Supreme doubts that subject. silenced forever all well-founded view the was in the united Such however, jurisdiction, nor did tide-waters; to time, Court at that limited Supremo who delivered either learned opinions justices even that the court could those intimate the court cases if the cause in such case entertain appellate jurisdiction or service consisted of acts done performed action 'and of the tide. waters not the ebb flow affected by decisions, virtue of con- those Admiralty jurisdiction, by bo to the ebb and in our limited tinued jurisprudence of a more the tide for than century, quarter flow which in all dissatisfaction existed deepseated spite commerce interested Western of the country parts of that lakes and rivers portion great navigation of the Union. was to furnish a made

Subsequent attempt by Congress no moans satisfac- which was by for the difficulty, remedy wore also obviate embarrassment tory, expedients which wore courts, all of unsuccess- equally attempted by taco face Court ful, until Supremo brought whether the rule of decision that the jurisdic- the question was limited to ebb flow the tion of as a of that clause correct exposition could-be upheld tide judicial the Constitution provides power extend all cases of States shall the United jurisdiction. induced of stare decisis, the cry just change Opposition was the as when presented ju- argument admiralty tide even within the followed the of risdiction body county. the to insufficient to restrain -advance! a cry Such proved 586 Clifford, J., dissenting. even or to jurisdiction prevent entering admiralty tide-waters

into limits States the having acknowledged borders, it was destined to a still within aud their again the means of it was invoked as defeat when perpet- greater error that the did the admiralty jurisdiction uating great and fresh-water rivers of our not extend to the lakes great country. case, review the former court to

Public the duty required court did not over the and the presiding magistrate great there rule of decision established reverse the hesitate to the effect that jurisdiction the admiralty determine and that it extended all tide-waters, public not limited of commerce and navi rivers used for the lakes aud purpose States or for the trade.* betweeu foreign gation made to induce Strenuous effort subsequently rule laid or to restrict its down, there court to qualify courts jurisdiction so that application within, or service aets done extend to performed not should waters were if above flux county, bod}' court refused but tide, adopt any reflux in the most man reaffirmed, authoritative qualification, in the announced two cases rule ner, leading previously those subjects.† upon is, the jurisdiction

Unquestionably, made to character cases, upon depend navigable those the ebb flow of the tide; water, cited, case last if the water in the is navi- say, if it is public deemed to public, it is regarded gable of the admiralty jurisdiction scope within legitimate the Constitution. two contained in the one or expressions opin- Except which are much intensified Justice, Chief ion of case, and which repeated opinion head-note those two decisions would, of The case Magnolia, Howard, Chief, 12 The Genesee 452; Clarke, Howard, 298; Id. Magnolia, Waring The Gen Chief, Id. 454. esee The Lottawanna. Oct. 587 J., Clifford, dissenting. Opinion of admi the all have settled general question probability, free several Constitution, under from the jurisdiction ralty themselves embarrassments perplexing presented Considerable subsequent weight given litigations. and those that the lakes opinions great circumstance be fresh-water rivers are of extended commerce the theatre and nations, tween States different and foreign fell court into the error that ju subsequently was limited the commer Courts risdiction District and cases that decided two Constitution, cial power contract for an goods transportation affreightment another in the oue in State to same State, port port fur or that contract necessary trade, in such a is not within the admi nished to vessel Federal courts.* jurisdiction ralty an was too not to attract the error atten Such palpable case as soon as a was court tion presented involving or three same two later, question, ques years in the for a collision, was form a libel tion presented decided unanimously admiralty jurisdic Constitution; that in cases of conferred tort was tion unaffected consideration that wholly question was not commerce or in com foreign engaged States; whether between merce jurisdiction, is contract or does not tort, action depend cause matters commerce; two jurisdic regulations distinct and that were con arc entirely things, they tion and distinct is the ferred separate grants; locality tort, in cases of and that, consequently, of jurisdiction test is done on waters, act the case is navigable the wrongful if in the admiralty courts. cognizable one properly † called to those two cases in an aft again Attention were when both suit, distinctly overruled freightment whole hesitation, court decided that con- without or service maritime and claims, tracts, purely touching Ib. Howard, 245; Maguire Card, Newbury, Allen v. Commerce, Black, Ob Iottawanna. Clifford, J., dissenting. duties commerce rights appertaining navigation, of admiralty properly cognizable cognizance District Courts.*

(cid:127) these Court difficulties and before the Supreme Pending decided that the Act extended the ju Judiciary admiralty waters, risdiction over all restriction that our navigable it- in one State to did extend to from port voyages into another in the same State had become incorporated port to extend such juris the act of Congress passed professedly lakes and the rivers connected with diction to the great in view of constant and same; Court, but the Supreme that restriction,' out of embarrassment perplexing growing in hesitate to' decide that the act did not that Congress had and and that the become obsolete inoperative, regard created the Constitution and con jurisdiction admiralty tire same withiu ferred Act was Judiciary everywhere States, that distinction between tide every United was in that waters oblit waters and other navigable regard erated overruled.† theories also became certain prevalent quar

Erroneous . to the true-nature of the respect ters in liability of ships necessary repairs owners vessels sup to the master on the credit of the that furnished ship, plies was in all cases the merchant to upon burden of proof such necessaries and needed that ship both show to credit of the justified resorting master to-that effect were rendered the Circuit Decrees vessel. to error was corrected but on Courts, appeal in the true rule applied and the case.‡ that the neces- supplies Where appears on her the ship proceed voyage pre- to enable sary faith, if are furnished is, good sumption is and owner the master well as those responsible necessaries, unless it appears that the who supplied to have applied funds which those ought had he master Wallace, The 8 Eagle, Id. Belfast, The Lulu, 9 Id. 129. 197; Grapeshot, The Id. ‡ Oct. 1874.] Lottawanna. Clifford, J., dissenting. have known and that the furnishers knew ought

objects, those facts.* has show the several de- been remarked to

Sufficient the effect to remove cisions referred had every stumbling- exercise of in the the full way admiralty block legitimate from the two—the one ac- arising long jurisdiction except opinion quiescence legal profession founded take of suits courts could not cognizance other insurance, marine policies growing of this court which it out of an decision supposed early of a courts taking jurisdiction prohibits enforce a contract for libel in rem filed a material-man to in her to a ship furnished necessary repairs home port. the first of the two obstructions mentioned re

Happily it court, b\- a more recent is moved decision of thp that this court have much to regretted majority ” “ not to have decided remove the other until more they ” “ season that convenient to great purpose.† accomplish when error, in an it dis- such Promptitude correcting covered, is as the is suffered to desirable, pre- very longer is the the correction will vail the that impair danger greater sure, is slow and it is not vested Justice but doubted rights. or the rule come, sooner later the correction will as in which the jurisdiction decision exercise such prohibits founded in mistake. a case manifestly of the facts of the in the case appear statement Enough the without them details already given, reproducing ‡ the evidence. Suffice it to of the has say controversy of a balance fund in of the Dis registry respect Court, derived from sale of a steamer seized and trict of seamen’s Both in payment sold for parties wmges. were interveuors in District this court Court. Appel what remains of the sale lants claim of the as mort proceeds virtue of a of the steamer executed to by mortgage gagees Kalorama, Custer, 205; 10 Id. Ib. 215. Wallace, Company Insurance Dunham, 561-563.—Rep. Supra, pp. ‡ Tue Lottawanna. J., Clifford, dissenting. hand make the owner. On the other the appellees them by insist the same virtue of they claim furnished have for repairs necessary supplies Proofs were taken on the credit the vessel. master deter- District heard, Court ultimately parties were entitled to the balance mined mortgagees who intervenors was taken Due appeal the fund. Court, to the Circuit furnished repairs supplies, Cdurt heard, were and the Circuit where parties again decree of District Court and entered de- reversed who furnished the in favor intervenors cree repairs was taken Prompt appeal and supplies. intervening to this court that decree. mortgagees and effect as errors are substance fol- assigned, Two erred in effect That the Circuit Court lows: giving (1) which had not been rule, new twelfth adopted of intervention were That the the libels filed. when (2) Court, the fund the material- erred awarding Circuit shown that creditors have any is not such men, privi- the laws State. lege claims for service damage purely Contracts and duties to commerce appertaining and touching rights Whenever cognizable admiralty. and navigation a contract or claim, lien arises con a maritime made or furnished to respecting troversies the libellant collision, or in case of his may pursue a ship, breach a of a maritime whether it contract or remedy, a in vessel, suit rem tort, or marine by against for a master and owner in cases against in personam a suit for the are liable default. jointly alleged By where is without ship a lien upon given, express any civil vessel or those who furnish her contract, repair with whether vessel was at her home supplies, port necessary the. were made and repairs supplies when furn or abroad ished.* John, * Practice, 154; The 3 & Bruce’s Robinson’s Admiralty, Williams Bell, Council, 24; Privy Kent, Moore’s 3 168; 7 12th ed. Hosmer

288; a. 169, note 3 Id. 591 Oct. The Lottawanna. J., Clifford, dissenting Opinion of fitted out who had or Abbott,* man, repaired Every says services, had in those or to be lent employed ship, money which in nations still those the law Rome, possesses basis of their have as the jurispru the civil law adopted in to other dence, a or payment preference privilege right in creditors itself without the value of ship upon or contract, strument or any express agree hypothecation, “ such a in navem ment, claim. Qui ship subjecting exstruendam credidilvel eiiamemendamprivile vel instruendam “ vel emendo, habel.” vel navis gium Quod quis † fabricando vel ob causa, vel modocredidcrit armendo, vel instruevdo quoquo Wher navem habel vendilampetal, post privilegium fiscum”‡ ever a lien a claim exists, ship gives ad rein be carried into and the effect jus by legal process, claim into she travels whosesoever possession ship come, and enforced the court of admiralty may proceeding rem.§ law, of the civil but all doubt is the rule

Beyond lien in- cases, the common law such only recognized is the dependent statutory possessory regulations, which arises out and is of, dependent upon, possession as in where an cases delivered to arti- ship, goods san or tradesman to manufactured Such repaired. as understood common did not attach unless lien, law, at was who set ship person possession up claim, the extent it conferred privilege was he in his retain the until he might possession him due for the made or the paid money furnished. supplies discussed, matters need not be

Undisputed consequently bo a contract for assumed that necessary repairs contract, whether the a maritime vessel was at 42, Digest, 5, 142. L. Tit. 1. Shipping, On 5, Commerce, 197; Code, 42, ; du Art. French L Tit. 1. 34 Code Id‡ 3; Harrison, 1, 12, ¡ 2 Reports, Li v. Tit. Art Abbot’s United States 74 Nestor, Series, Kirkland, Register, 301; 12 Law New parte Ex American Sumner, 273; Jenkins, Life of Wynn’s Addison on Leoline cd.), Contracts (6th § to 99. 592 Lottawanna. J., Clifford, dissenting.

Opinion of made were and when the repairs supplies or lionie abroad a that neither furnished; also assumed may for a materials nor furnish the for ship coutract. building maritime because contract, of the same is a construction maritime are not connected contracts directly’ and are to be are made land contracts commerce. They their collect of the kind on land. Contractors performed mines, from the forests and the materials yery largely is there is no connection launched necessary until ship her subse contract and between subject-matter a vehicle of commerce navigat quent employment ion.* were furnished intervening

Repairs supplies and. claim the steamer inker home port, they appellees of the fund-in the the balance that have a they upon demand, which of their of the court payment registry two is resisted grounds: appellants chiefly a lion in such case. maritime arises that They (1) deny have a contend, Because, they, (2) appellants, remains of the fund virtue of the claim to what superior of the steamer to them owner. executed mortgage to the first is drawn from Support proposition chiefly court, of this establishes that decision which it supposed kind, admit, rule of Claims court decision.† case, rise to maritime lien where the give repairs in a furnished to to a port foreign ship ship which the a State to ship belong, does law, law, the civil following gives he a lien on the his and that itself'for security, party well enforce maintain in rem the suit All modern, his ancient and admit authorities, right. but the re that, proposition, proceed say to which necessaries or State spect port the mu- case ship belongs, governed altogether by Howard, 129; Jefferson, 400; v. Roach 22 Id. More Chapman, 494; Young Ship Clifford, 36; Enequist, Orpheus, v. 23 Id. v. wood Ed Elliott, supra, p. wards Smith, Wheaton, The General 593 Oct. 1874.] The Lottawanna. dissenting. Clifford, J., Opinion unless lien is State, that no implied that and law of nicipal in a whole the Taken as opinion that law. it is recognized in ever than one given is more that unsatisfactory case It is unaccounta case that learned a commercial judge. in deliv that a ble, jurist, Judge Story, says distinguished so of the court on-a question interesting the opinion ering but little. one have done so He should gives pregnant, treats authorities, entire cites no the to opinion, page Other a manner.* in unsatisfactory the subject slight reason the distinction the have to attempted give judges a who the between to party set in that case remedy given up the to in port supplies ship furnishes necessary repairs which she the other than that to a State belongs necessaries to to who furnishes like the party remedy given the reasons are a domestic Those ship. frankly.stated in vindicate the late to Chief Justice Taney endeavoring in in rent action of the court to process party denying furnished such necessaries to a domestic in a had who ship where the State State made such claims a lien His view is that the Court, vessel. invested Supreme being in with the to make its rules, discretion power may grant to or withhold the use the in rem as seem right process suited ends of in such best contro promote justice ; that the versies rem is to the process granted party fur necessaries to a or a ship nishing foreign ship port “ to which she does not State because the supplies,” belong “ case, such to be furnished on presumed credit vessel,” and rem that is denied to process who furnishes necessaries to the domestic party ship it is that were because “furnished on the presumed the owner credit of personal master.”† that is said is Sometimes process granted case because is former presumption owner is it is denied in the latter because case absent, is the owner is present, but presumption mode same rule of another decision. Unless- stating Review, Black, Lawrence, Law The St. 1 American VOL. XXI. Thk Lottawanna. Clifford, J., dissenting.

the credit is the true rule is that there given ship no maritime lien in either and if the credit is case, given dictate that the fur- reason and sound ship, policy party the domestic necessary repairs nishing as well should be allowed proceed ship ship against similar relief who afforded foreign party to which she did not of a State to the ship belong. almost without number to illus may Examples given a de and of rule of the trate impolicy, injustice, absurdity vessel, whose on such distinction. founded Suppose cision all of whose owners one Maine, York, except is home port nine distant. Well EL, Portsmouth, N. reside in /miles the vessel starts on for and voyage manned equipped weather and Johns, but receiving rough St. meeting four hundred miles distant into Eastport, she damage puts Material-men and her home for supplies. port, repairs decision, would have no the rule under there, supposed the master the and unknown ship, being maritime upon without credit the and necessary repairs supplies there the of law is not be presumption could procured, although a case are in such because the the owners present, port in the State which the to UnJ ship of Eastport belongs. for want of credit, relief there able to find ship being disabled, be able and not entirely may possibly crippled only decides return, the master to make at and suppose arrives in off the and that ship safety port tempt, for the relief she there Portsmouth, vainly puts sought it now be assumed that she in her first refuge, port at that credit, with no will-meet difficulty port obtaining will have a lien there material-men upon ship, as the absent, is that the owners are presumption because legal one, there whose all reside residence is except though miles distant. nine only the different localities of navi- these

Apply suggestions see will rules decision easy gation, mischiefs Com- perplexities. lead to must unparalleled decision, rules of and those more sensible merce requires are embarked in such interests are perilous pursuits whose Oct. Lottawanna. Clifford, J., dissenting. such rules of decision than

entitled to better protection afford. to a for domestic contracts repairs

Executory within the admitted, it is as much jurisdiction ship for furnished court as one similar necessaries a State other than that to a foreign ship ship but the which ship argument opinion belongs, do consideration is that the case of the under party must mestic seek his the person remedy against were reasons vessel. What against Judge Story’s none, his conclusion does not as he but for appear, gave conclude, the absence of the best such, safe those exist are given organ He that the last cited.* conceded contract case expressly contract, vindication of placed in rem decision process ground given prior to a domestic vessel the court of and supplies countries where in those of the civil principles admiralty, the maritime code, is no of and he part general law prevail, that the court the case is obvious based prior that it insists the the that laws of those coun decision upon ground the Here, then, all interested in are local laws. the tries ques error those fatal -which decisions, see the pervading tion may rule of decision embodied several mari the is, that each of laws, mere local the coun codes are particular time framed ordained. where the code was try embodied the ordinances, trea- Unless principles codes laws, adopted sea countries tises, digests, constitute, law to the civil extent that prevails, where decision, of rule maritime concur-in it is as difficult known even judicial investigation, code it is what as known to does, reader every to imagine legal convened, those countries never that as history of judicial a ordained nations,.and a of maritime system in congress can which as the standard properly regarded regulations that subject. authority upon Lawrence, Black, The St. Loitawanha. Clifford, J., dissenting. a

Such maritime code as that referred in that to, opinion, exist; if and all not, does the codes of the respec- tive which are to countries be regarded adopt civil source laws, arises, as mere local from what inquiry courts came the rule of decision that District Courts over contracts for have repairs admiralty jurisdiction (cid:127) to the of State to or ship furnished ship supplies foreign of af- over contracts to which does not ship belong, not derived the rule decision was freightment. Certainly as adminis- from the parent country jurisprudence as the Revolution, at the of the prohibition tered period com- event, had, courts before long the common-law to to the all claim exercise relinquish the admiralty pelled such jurisdiction. to a claim of could not be drawn jurisdiction Support not, if and the civil-law are source, aud codes from that laws, mere local if see, impossible be regarded correct, has admiralty views of appellants over do- repairs contracts jurisdiction no what source rule decision was de- ships, mestic cases the words “all rived over include contracts for jurisdiction jurisdiction” even to of State ship foreign ship and supplies does as no such not belong, jurisdiction exercised parent country time separation. .at the be made in to that may response

Two suggestions argu- ment :

, of the Constitution the words refer That before had parent country jurisdiction admiralty of the com- unfriendly prohibitions narrowed been by courts. mon-law but then it follows that, peradventure beyond

Admit which decision construes words of rule of the same conferring admiralty juris- power including Constitution over contracts for and diction repairs supplies foreign tp the same conclusion to con- lead ships,.must respect and to domestic as the furnished an- supplies ships, tracts Oct. 697 Clifford, J., dissenting.

Opinion of cient courts of the coun jurisdiction admiralty parent contracts, extended such whether and try repairs were or domestic furnished to supplies ships. By foreign a civil had law one who or every repaired supplied ship a herself for amount of ship privilege contracted, debt thus and for centuries courts of that exercised respect country jurisdiction, to which the best that the lien or text-writers say privilege distinction vessels,- extended to all without and ships any between and domestic ships.* foreign Benedict, it is not how dif

Indeed, see, says easy any ference cau if one exist is a so vessel, ship principle; is the other; contract, if one is a maritime so must be other; and the and the same law same reason which give the rule in the one case it in the In both it is other. give labor, materials, which, for service, furnished, supplies vessel, when for the become used purpose, part her a lien attaches to because were repairs benefit, for her as true of a domestic as of just ship sbip.† foreign law, maritime the civil and the Par- By says all sons, the lien or extends to without ships, privilege vessels; and be distinction between domestic foreign asserts that the exer- courts parent country were cised that until abandon jurisdiction compelled courts, for which tbe of the common-law prohibitions there is the highest'authority. Stowell, Lord

Furnishers supplies, repairs says a lien the countries the civil have law, most of governed had same doctrine itself, on in our country courts, time been but after held long by the. contest it was courts overthrown long finally tbe common law and judicatoiy country.‡ highest furnish show a contract to tliat Argument Contracts, Nestor, 6th ed. 260. Sumner, on 79; 1 Parsons 272; Shipping, ed.), Benedict 2 Parsons (2d § Coe, 639; 325; Zodiac, Cowper, Rich v. Haggard’s Admiralty, ‡ Term, Davies, 1 Farmer 598 Clifford, J., dissenting. a is domestic or a mari- whether

supplies, foreign ship, as there hardly is not a well- contract, time necessary, in to the our and the considered decision contrary language, rule, all its admiralty twelfth mutations, throughout first time, has adopted present always time it Courts over such contracts District jurisdiction given the enemies personam. or in Both and the either rem. in have concurred in that admiralty always friends of propo- in leaves in case which ex- sition, nothing controversy whether a maritime lien arises where the cept question furnish for a domestic is to contract be conceded that wherever must there is a mari- as it ship, in the it be enforced Hen admiralty. time differ from common-law liens liens in Maritime important liens are common-law connected always particulars, lost when the thing possession the possession the other hand maritime lien On does not is relinquished. as it is a upon manner depend possession, in any right which itself, interest gives proprietary thing affecting it to recover that interest. proceed against and a in it right cases, in all in the such and the exists Jurisdiction is a maritime lien there wherever prop- rule in ease of sale and followsthe to the proceeds adheres erty soever and the hands they may go, whose proceeds same' into be attached in the circumstances may such admiralty. under it a writers call frequently civil-law privilege, tod Jurists rem, proceeding settled well it is such an enforce interest. process is the proper only lien is the foundation aof proper a maritime pro Usually is seldom or never such rem, as process appro ceeding to enforce the inehoate interest except for any purpose priate lien, to be well andthe settled appears such created there rem is proper pleading where proceeding is the office of exists thing a maritime perfect-.* pleading a process Council, 284; The Bell, Privy Rock Moore’s Island Bridge, Harmer Wallace, 215. Oct. Lottawanna. Clifford, J., dissenting.

Opinion contradiction of the party Successful proposition well to a domestic and ship, repairs supplies furnishing to a as he who furnished such and repairs supplies foreign the aueient had a lieu the ship, ship by admiralty made, cannot be the parent thejudicial history country the is of evidence to establish affirmative of that full country and Admitted in its full breadth.* proposition length is and it would seem to established, not, the proposition that which led that if it was Supreme follow practice “all cases admi to that words the conclusion Court must include maritime contracts jurisdiction” ralty furnished that -the to foreign ships, supplies repairs that same induce the court to hold same should practice furnished domes include words also as that as well inasmuch will tic ships, correspond ruling law, law and the maritime as with the civil general of the court of the ancient practice admiralty parent country. the framers when Constitution, All that agree “all the words cases of and mari- admiralty

they employed had in view must have some system time jurisdiction” and those who that the refer- deny maritime jurisprudence, of the com- ence was to regulations either that the inference was insist, world usually’ mercial as known at the date of Revolu- system English known in the States tion, practice system Constitution, i the Federal the adoption prior at this to refute the that Much discussion day theory and servile of the system parent country crippled un- at of our is as it existed the dawn quite independence as the of the decisions of reports Supreme necessary, with cases which Court interspersed throughout None, believed, will is denied and overruled. theory 142; Jenkins, 746; 3 Neptune, Haggard, 2 Life of 1 Parsons’s 490; Ballam, Law, Clement, Shower, 338; 2 1 Hoar v. v. Maritime Justin Salkeld, Bernardiston, Williams, 34; 2 367; Peere Wilkins Watkinson v. Carmichael, 105; Shank, 234; parte Atkyns, Ex 1 Parsons Douglas, Shipping, Lottawanna. Clifford, J., dissenting. now that the better source of reference in deny expounding Constitution, the extent order ascertain part of the boundaries admiralty jurisdiction, sys- tem practice courts regard colonial times and before Federal Constitution during was ratified. same

Still the must follow as if question conclusion was tested system practice courts of the as it existed parent before essential country features of were annulled and .system overthrown by of the courts of common for the prohibitions law, reason that the of that shows to a history period demonstration courts, that the in the admiralty Colonies organized prior to the Revolution, claimed aud exercised sucia jurisdiction furnished, over for contracts aud to domestic repairs supplies as well over contracts to furnish ships such necessaries to ships. foreign

Matters of were, cases, in most re admiralty cognizance served to the crown in the colonial but the first charters, charter to the of Massachusetts con granted colony Bay tained no such reservation. of jurisdiction Consequently was matters exercised under that colony charter of Assistants Court whose organized by colony, functions were prescribed powers regulated by last article of ordinance, colonial which ordained that “ shall be heard aud all cases of determined admiralty Assistants without a unless Court of the court shall jury, see cause to that this act provided always contrary, shall not be obstruct of interpreted mariner just p]ea any merchant, other court any person any impleading or cause that contract, matter depends upon covenant, of common matter or other affairs.”* equity it is "Without the words any explanation apparent that it vests in the ordinance created full thereby over all maritime covenant, cases contract, jurisdiction to the suitor matters other equity, reserving right Charters, p. 716. App., Ancient Oet. Clifford, J., dissenting. common where the in cases a common-law

choose remecí}’ charter later it. years law competent Eighteen give and by to the of Massachusetts Bay, province granted were and authority charter all such power, jurisdiction, commis exercised virtue of to be reserved crown, n the kind issued under the seal. Commissions sions great have courts issued to the provincial judges vested were that those courts been published, they prove and cases maritime causes over all jurisdiction most terms.* unqualified in colonial

Two courts volumes of the those proceedings times have been found regis recently papers among trar of the court and in a in the city deposited public library Boston, Li which are full of instruction on the subject. bels for contribution are there and in per found both rem sonam, libels on and on contracts charter-parties libels both in rem material-men, affreightment, m in the home personam, furnished of those port, showing conclusively jurisdiction courts extended to all cases of and maritime juris diction understood for centuries in the parent country until power paralyzed by of the courts of common prohibitions law.† it was Throughout our many years judicial history a vexed whether the District Courts could exercise question in cases founded marine of insur- jurisdiction policies all ance, and of those volumes con- agree discovery of the colonial courts con- taining proceedings tributed much to the true solution of that very question. admi- Authentic is there exhibited that the colonial proof courts in such and exercised cases, ralty jurisdiction full and undeniable that courts also those proof equally exercised en- in rem favor of material-men to jurisdiction force claims their for and payment repairs furnished to domestic ships. * Benedict’s Admiralty, ed., 151; 2d History, 166; Stokes’s Colonial § Clarke, 454;

Waring Howard, v. 5 Dunham, Wallace, Insurance v. Co. Dunham, Insurance Co. Wallace, The Lotta wanna. Clifford, J., dissenting.

Opinion of the kiud have suffered Creditors of very severely them all seems cruel to deny nearly twenty years, when means of every against ship proctor proceeding ever had which is of that it is the knows remedy they only much value. restore is sometimes made that the court may

Suggestion the old the District Courts authority twelfth rule give in such cases to enforce State-law proceeding in rem. an was tried for Such expedient many.years, seems to me that trial, experience given by the late Chief to deter well-wishe- Justice Taney, ought - of the Federal re-establish system any attempt which so failed in the former trial. practice signally whether for are Necessaries, repairs supplies, usually master, ordered and the best text-writers his say is sufficient to cover all such and the authority sup of such other are ply provisions things necessary due it extends even to employment ship, in the absence of the money owner, if borrowing emp for the of the same ready mouey required purpose loyment.* credit is in cases of

Frequent indispensable emergency, and all shows that in cases it cannot be experience many obtained unless the material- merchant, provision-dealer, is allowed a lien on the man, ship-chandler be enforced a libel in as the master and owner rem, often too doubtful too are responsibility frequently enable the master to become insolvent to procure nec- laws too essaries without other State-lien com- security. with too conditions and plicated pregnant many special in their to be administered a court machinery regulations even if it be for this court to admiralty, competent pro- vide for the exercise of such a jurisdiction by District as a court Court sitting admiralty. rules, to make it is conceded, vested

Authority * Beldon Shipping, 129; Campbell, 886; 6 Exchequer, Maclachlan Conkling’s Admiralty, Oct. Clifford, J., dissenting.

court, and it be that such a rule may not be might produc tive of serious if very embarrassment laws State-lien were permanentlaws and the lien in with terms, gave out specific conditions or limitations inconsistent with the rules of the maritime the State- principles lien. But even in laws, such a case, were enforced under the old twelfth rule, not as a which was court right admiralty bound to into execution carry upon application libellant. On the those who framed the rule contrary, it in the always of a lien established regarded light which the foreign at its dis country, might, cretion, enforce under that rule in cases where in it did not volve controversies the limits of beyond jurisdict ion.*

Process in rem was authorized that rule upon that the ground local laws the lien where none was gave of a maritime given character, and the- court in that case proceeded say found to be incon- practice venient in most cases absolutely others, impracticable which induced the court to Different ex- repeal rule. have since been tried, various pedients from the appears modifications to which that rule has been subjected, now it is that it become advisable to return suggested may who practice justices framed that rule found “ abandon alien necessary entirely purposes which the was created, and decided admiralty power it formed no of the code of laws which part the admi- was established to' administer.” Before ralty so it- doing wise the reasons who weigh given by justices framed that rule as the for its abandonment. grounds

In of the States, court-, the laws were say found many not to harmonize with the and rules of the mari- principles time code. Certain conditions and forms of proceeding were to obtain the lien, and it was required de- generally clared to be forfeited or as waived after the regarded lapse aof certain some time, future These contingency. Lawrence, Black, St. Clifford, J., dissenting. and limitations differed in different States, conditions is to be used wherever the if the local gives process court to the it will subject lien necessity the lien laws of State and expounding every examining same execution, too, into in con- that, carrying is denied and troversies where existence lien on a construction of disputed altogether right depends indeed, or some claims statute, cases, State conflicting when States, of different the vessel for- the statutes under where to the of another State she also merly port belonged lien. arise to State-law Cases also where became subject to that claims a lien a third prior superior party aof statute of another State, under provisions libellant arises, equrt, such in such controversy say where court has no rem, clearly power proceeding claims or and con- adjust prior to decide dispute, to abandon would the contest and compelled sequently whenever the assumed its controversy recall process shape. in that those case cer-

Reasons given consideration', mature and it will be sufficient deserve tainly three laws of two or of the States to show to refer is there not overdrawn. picture portrayed or done material furnished or towards the Work build or or ves fitting, ships repairing, furnishing, equipping ing, the law of the State constitute, of New a lien sels Jersey, tackle, her vessel, or the ship apparel, furniture, lien shall thp continue for nine aud provision shall contracted, the debt is and that it after months pre liens mariners’ all other Means except wages.* ferred same act to such a enforce lieu if also provided to the sum of dollars. amounts debt twenty Application the creditor to one of the must be made by in writing magis a warrant to enforce the lien named act for trates is drawn but if in due amount, application collect to whom the same is officer addressed form magistrate Acts, 1857, p. 382. Sessions Oct. 1874] Lottawanna. J., Clifford, dissenting.

Opinion of sheriff, or other his warrant proper issue required attach, seize, and to safely keep him officer, commanding in the same of as directed vessel, or to be disposed ship of his must also make return premises He doings act. warrant, who and the officer issued ten to within days, a and true in- thereto, annex and out, just make subscribe so to be him seized, of all the signed ventory property and annexed his return. to who also the officer duties are imposed

Important upon must direct that a notice issued warrant. He containing in one or certain shall published prescribed requisites more of the order county, newspapers printed such a lien vessel other or upon ship person having his officer an of deliver the said account writing to may and affidavits demand, prescribed accompanied and such the act shall provides every person proofs; an creditor and shall be entitled be deemed to attaching same and and be benefits the same re- advantage subject as the creditor who made the and sponsibilities obligations ; further that liens not first and the provision application shall be deemed so inoperative verified presented cease. has also laws

Massachusetts same passed accomplish lien which in effect on the give purpose, ship State, has furnished labor or who, the material-man stores, for or on materials, or ac- or provisions, labor debt, to secure the such count of ship, payment unless satisfied, until the debt it be dis- lien to continue be, the creditor does not within if four solved, may from the file in the time the ship port, departs days or town subscribed statement, the clerk’s office the city to as and true account and sworn prescribed, giving just with credits the other demand, his all just particulars is also made for the enforce- therein Provision required. ment the lien Court of the Superior petition the debt was where the vessel when contracted, county mode is that the and the prescribed petition proceeding in vacation, entered in court filed in the clerk’s be may Lottawanna. Clifford, J., dissenting. in a inserted writ of office, summons, original served, and be entered attachment, returned, an order actions; and that the as other civil subsequent proceedings shall, as therein further pro for except enforcing in the act be as liens vided, prescribed enforcing and land.* buildings number of such liens the same

Any persons having in the same enforce petition same, may join shall be had in same proceedings regard respec- each and the claims of all shall be petitioner, tive rights lien for same ma- labor, marshalled to double prevent and to secure the stores, or terials, just provisions, rights are to be deducted from the expenses costs all. Proper is the residue to be distributed and among proceeds, them in full or claimants, rata pro as circum- paying several require. stances may have end same been to the passed

Laws legislature contracted within that State, Debts to the York. of New dollars, master, owner, of charterers, amount fifty or ocean-bound or builder, sea-going ship, consignee done or materials or other articles of work fur- account the building, repairing, fitting, towards nished furnishing, are a lien á made such her ship ship, or equipping to furniture, in all other liens tackle, preference apparel, Provisions stores furnished, mariners’ wages. except in ship and the expense keeping port, wharfage and debts ship, for unloading loading services of the amount of twenty-five or are dollars, towing piloting, and are same entitled to the included category also lien. same also are for means provided lien,

Detailed enforcing are to whether ships ocean-bound cease at Liens the kind vessels. smaller expiration contracted, the debt was unless after the ship of six months when the six months from the port was absent expired, is that the lien shall continue case the ten provision 768; Massachusetts, Statutes General Oct. Clifford, J., dissenting.. subject, next return after the shall port,

days ship abe cease to the debt shall however, to condition the cred- unless whenever the shall leave the port, to cause after her within twelve shall, days departure, itor as such lien therein filed specifications be drawn up claimed oath amount with statement under provided, same in the office and file the due, be specification therein set forth. as more city, fully clerk the county the creditor these shown with requisites being Compliance chambers, at Court, of the Supreme justice may apply the lien for a warrant to county, proper enforce All the various the amount. required to collect steps then lien and to collect the debt are to enforce the taken of which “alien to the one every purposes prescribed, was created, and forms no part power which the admiralty laws which it established to administer.”* the code of these of the different features of examination Separate will nor is it neces- enactments attempted, several all one at is manifest that any acquainted sary, in rem at ad- suits wilUsee glance the practice courts now incompetent organized utterly miralty it is Alterations, conditions and execute such regulations. in the" of the District Courts be made said, may organization obviate that but of those difficulty, incompetency administer under laws courts to regulations existing to such an no means the objection only experiment, by court, in view whether well be doubted may great and the enactments, of such frequent chauges number of each State is the enactment will exposed, which annually all the duties which able to adoption perform without would impose, leaving unperformed system many Constitution purposes contemplated by high Act. Judiciary original These several conclusions render it unnecessary give examination to other much objections by urged ap- that are pretensions they appellants, pellees * 4 York, at Large, Stat. New 608 Clifford, J., dissenting.

entitled to the balance of the fund in the registry virtue of their which has never been mortgage, foreclosed. and inasmuch as formally They mortgagees, their has never been claim foreclosed their mortgage the owner opposed I am of the steamer, opinion that the District Court as a court of had sitting no of the cause of jurisdiction and that the action, decree the Circuit Court the decree of the District Court reversing is correct.*

Even obviated, which is suppose difficulty may still denied, rule of decision remaius, governing as material-men have appellees virtue of superior the maritime law. so in that would be com Clearly mercial in the world, unless country our except England, own must be included in that Commen country category. tators the civil law and the law of everywhere agree those countries which have its a lien adopted principles, without contract, to those given any express who her furnish her with necessaries, either at repair home abroad.† has been

Sufficient remarked to show jurisdiction the District Courts is not limited particular subjects over which the courts exer- parent country cised when the colonists here and jurisdiction immigrated into themselves new and it be ad- communities, formed all that it not extend to cases would fall mitted, does to the civil law and the within according practices of continental Europe. usages when ancestors, here, Our immigrated organized all into colonies assumed and exercised themselves enacted new and those laws, of government. They powers were, cases, modified. Judicatories many operation Howard, 241; v. Ship Angelique, Jay, 19 The Schuchardt John Id. 17 132; 73; 2 401; Neptune, Haggard, Dowthorpe, Robinson, W. Prince, Benedict, The Sailor 363, 67; Valin, 369; Pollock on Shipping, Maude & Ordonnance de la Title 2, Mer, Mer, 1; 351, 6; 18; Art. Cleirac de la Art. Casaregis Jur. Dis. Law, 142; 82, 91-93. and Admiralty Civil Roccus de Nav. et Nat. 2 Brown’s Oct. Colby. National Bank v. of the case.

Statement were created and to hear and determine empowered legal character, all those of a controversies, maritime including unrestricted of the common-law wholly prohibitions courts of the from which had they country emigrated; when in events found progress they necessary to frame the Federal Constitution and saw fit to proper pro- vide shall that the extend to “all cases of ad- judicial power it was to the miralty jurisdiction,” known and in the as it was understood States jurisdiction to which referred.

Proofs of the character are now exhibited that the highest did courts of States exercise over jurisdiction contracts for furnished to domestic ships as well as to aud it follows, as it me, seems to ships, foreign in this case had a maritime lieu appellees steamer and the same attaches to the proceeds below, of the court and that the decree of the Cir- registry cuit Court be affirmed. should

Mr. Justice FIELD also dissented. Colby.

National Bank organized of a National under the property Congress 1. The act bank 3d, 1864, creditor, attached at the suit an individual June after 1he insolvent, subjected cannot be payment bank has become sale demand, property by the claim for the against of his receiver of the subsequently appointed. bank bank to enforce the collection of a is- against A suit a National demand dissolving' of a District Court the United a decree States abated rights franchises, its forfeiting upon' rendered corporation against Comptroller the bank filed information the Cur- an rency. Alabama; Court case to the Supreme being Error thus: 1867, a draft of the United treasury

On the 15th April, the First National Bank of Selma, States presented VOL. XXI.

Case Details

Case Name: The Lottawanna

Court Name: Supreme Court of the United States

Date Published: May 18, 1875

Citation: 88 U.S. 558

Docket Number: 33

Court Abbreviation: SCOTUS