Grand River times. [volume] (Grand Haven, Mich.) 1851-18??, 1851-10-29


that the Legislature had the powerto enact such
a statute.
The State laws before alluded to limit the
liens to the sailing of the boat or vessel, or to
twelve days thereafter; this law limits the com.
mencement of suit to one year after the cause
Of action shall have accrued. Those laws are
correct in policy and can be administered with.
out prejudice to any one. They are confined to
domestic vessels, and domestic creditors, and to
contracts on shore. Furnishing materials and
doing work on domestic vessels are as notori-
Gus as the furnishing materials and performing
work in the erection of building. This law
does not stop here, but includes all boats and
vessels used in navigating the waters Of the
State, as well foreign as domestic; and also
damages arising upon contracts of affreightment,
and for injuries done by such boats or vessels
to persons or property without regard to local.
ity. Now, neither the policy of this law, nor of
the laws OF the country, nor the understanding
of the people, nor the interests of trade and
commerce. favor secret or unknown lien upon
boat or vessel for uncertain or unliquidated
damages. A foreign boat or vessel may be used
in navigating the waters of this State; but can
the Legislature of the State create lien on
such boat or vessel before she enters port Of
bringing into Court any lien.creditors; nor that
any such creditors may intervene for their in
terests; nor for any notice of the attachment; !;
nor for the sale of the boat or vessel, so as to
vest in the purchaser an unincumbered and in
defeasable title thereto. 1t authorizes an order
to sell the boat or vessel which order sho'd be ex
ecuted and returned in the same manner as exc
cutions. And it further provides, that whenev-
er an order of sale shall lie made for the sale of
boat or vessel, with its tackle, apparel and fur
niture, the sheriff or constable shal! have power
to sell such part thereof, or such interest there
in, as shall be necessary to satisfy the amount
of the judgment rendered in favor of the plain
tiff, and all the costs that may accrue. 1t is
questionable whether the officer is authorized to
sell more than an interest in or part Of the boat
or vessel, under this statute. 1t would be pre-
postorous to allege, that under the statute, an
officer could sell a boat or VESSEL with her tack
lie, apparel and furniture, worth thousands, upon
an order of sale for a comparatively inconsder-
able sum and that such purchaser should hold
such boat or vessel clear of all liens. A lien
given by the maritime law is preferred to a bo-
ma fde purchaser without notice, and is even
preferred to claim Of forfeiture on the part of
the government ofthe United States. The bark
Chusan Story Rep. 456; The st. Jago de Gu
ba Wheat Rep. 4O9r. In the admiralty all
persons having demands against boats or ves-
sells, or interested therein, permitted to inter
vene for their interests, and are presumed to
have notice of the proceeding? for this reason a
sale in pursuance Of decree in the admiralty
confers upon the purchaser an indefeasabe title
against the world, discharged of all liens what
soever. Not so under this statute. A purchas-
er of boat or We sse or of part of, or of an in
terest in, boat or vessel, under this statute, is
in no better condition in regard to liens given
by the maritime law, than the original owner
The sale of part, or OF an interest in the boat
or vessel is inconsistent with lien on an entire
boat or vessel. A lien enforced in the admiral
ty requires the sale of the entire vessel, not Of
a part, or Of an interest therein.
AS liens on vessels cannot be created by the
laws of State in cases of contract or tOrts,
without the territorial limits, the exigenciens of
commerce require the summary process of the
admiralty, in cases Of steamboats, and vessels
afioat, or employed in business of ofcommerce and
navigation on the lakes. For this reason Con-
gress passed an act, extending the jurisdiction
of the District Courts Of the United States to
certain cases upon the lakes, or navigable wa
tars connecting the same. This act was passed
February 26, l845, and confers quasi admiralty
jurisdiction upon the Federal courts of contracts
and torts arising in, upon, or concerning steam
boats and vessels employed in business of CON-
merce and navigation upon the lakes. This act
was passed in pursuance of the power vested in
Congress by sec. 8 of the Constitution of the
United States, to regulate commerce with for
eign nations and among the several States-
The statute of this State, providing for the COL
lection of debts against boats and vessels, was
enacted in the year 1888; and was transferred
into the present revised statutes. As Congress
had not conferred upon the Federal Courts the
jurisdiction contemplated by the Constitution,
until the enactment of February, lS45, and as
this was territory, the statute may have been
proper until that time, or even until the admis-
sion of this State into the Union but whether
it is now operative, or to what extent under the
saving clause Of the act Of Congress of l845, in
regard to foreign vessels navigating the lakes,
or demands arising out of the State, is not to
be determined at this time, this case not requir-
ing decision. merely advert to the point to
avoid any misunderstanding of this opinion.
shall merely remark, that generally where the
Constitution of the United States confers pow
ers of Legislation upon Congress, State laws be-
come imperative upon the legislation of Con-
gress on the same subject And State laws
have not extra territorial operation or effect
The case under consideration is in regard to a
domestic vessel and domestic creditors, which
are proper subjects Of State legislation. 1t is
the duty of the State Legislature to enact Stat