The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1855-06-16
United States Clrouit Court.
Decision IN ADMIRALTY on APfEAL.
6efore Hen. linden Halsoa.

United utafes Circuit Court.
Decision IN ADMIRALTY on APPEAL.
Before Hsa. Judge Nelso,.
JUN 1.-The following Decision was this morning
rendered By the Court In argued the lTth day
Of May last. The decision In thu District Court was
reSdered BY Judge I,gsrsoi, in favor Of the Hbeants
from v hich the respoadents appalled,
DkIIyERr OF Go0Ds-yURnpIcuoS ooURr-coSaGSEk.
Fancis Yose and others ". Thomas Allen, 0Wser Of
cover damages for ths delivery Of quantity Of pig
IRON In pursuance Of the bui Of lading IL Was shipped
ssa' ss :A:s to this ss sss
to Elimination Brothers, OF this city agents Of the
owner The bill Of ladng was in hs usual form except
coosguees in ave days after arrival Of vessel at Nav
York. pay dsmurrsse OF s2s per day after that sus
vsw We have tsisa Of the case. On the arrival
Of the vessel, she was reported by the master
ssvios as 70 the place Of discharge They expressed
wish she ehould discharge ct do,k bst
Washington market and the Battery which va. asssntsd
to- provided vacant berth could be obtained; bat
inquiry the nearest berth to the place mentioned
was pier Ma. 80 tho North river; and which
vessel The coosgnees objected to tho delivery this
place. and insisted that the vessel should postpone 1t till
was unds rssood might Be IN the soarss Of r.. days
This lot assentsd TO by ths agents Of the ship and
hi .s ssass sss, No.
for some forty feet solid the other part built Piles
callef bridge per. The iron discharged tals
Jay morning, iJuns "a and sontiuusd daring the day
time till IL O'Clock next day, when the dockmsstsr,
spprehensivs It would give way under the weight,
1Ss sd the master discasrag any more Of the sarge
afternoon, again the delivery and continued
until again attracting thu notice Of the dockmsstsr they
were forbidden the second time. They then ces.si;
but the next morning. according to the weight OF the
proofs, sgain commenced dischargng, and contiousd
till about IL o'clock A M when tho p!sr broke doxa
IRON INTO the river about ATTY tons Of which sea
totally lest. There were only some seveaty-avs
gwen to the master Of The danger The m stsr It this
time gave notice to the consgnses OF the iron OF
would remove it from tho psr, which they NO
elected refused The simple question In the s
OF n0s IL
TO the consgnees according 70 the Of the
bill Of ladings We think not Assuming that the master
port In oscharging the iron at pier No. &c. the neg
lsct or refusal Of the consguses 70 procure different
Tins, the responsibility Of safe delivery at the place
selected rested upon him. He was bound not only to
:st s dock fS the II, Of
selected must be at and safe for the deposit OF them
and the cargo also must be discharged with all proper
this would be an abuse Of the right which the custom
Of the port extends to the owner or masters, in
ticipate in the delivery Nor did tue msser exempt
himsefrom any portion Of thi. responsibility BY givas
the pier in the discharge Of the IRON They had rs ss
to have ANYTHING to do with the delivery at that place;
the master was left to discharge II there il
all at his peril, without their c0nsent participa-
ton. II the per found insufficient for the discharge
Of the whole Of the ron portion should have bssn de-
sgnses This was an obvious suggestion after the dock
master had forbidden further discharge upon the
pier at which the vessel lay, q, what might have
have been distributed over larger portion Of the pier
An objection is taken to ths right the coasgness to
below TO entertain It, We are satisfied, however, that
neither objection In well founded The consgnees we're the
a. S upon the sonn
OF libel fled for tho performance OF che OF
areshtment We think the decree Of the Court below
right, and should be affirmed.
Judge IDgsrson has set down his decisions Ia the fol-
lowing cases. argued before at the May term OF the
OF BUILDER UPON A SMP-MARrrIME LAw-gSGLI5H
observation-disclosures
Joseph Beers Ct al vs. The Steamboat John Adams.-on
the 25th OF January, 1854 contract entared into
between John Crawford shipb alder of Report N j.
and WDlsm small Of New York city, by which it was
agreed that Crawford should build and deliver 70
Small three ferry boats, Of certain dimensioos for
tain sums OF money and that thu boats and the mate
property Of small subject only to lien on the part Of
Crawford for such sums Of money might be que
Ksypo and e. contract 1as msae 81 him n
for the benefit Of and carried out BY the drm
az no ana ns S Cs,.
Small at New York They atsrwards failed and msds an
assignment 70 The tsants, who NOS libel the boat to
cover about 600 stu due 70 Terry, for build
ing her, and to them assgnses Of the Ar claiming
that Crawford Terry had lien upon the boat either
and materials suppl cd to and Tor foreign vessel
and that Small resident Of New Jersey the
which especially gave them lien upon the bost. which
would b enforced X Court Of Admiralty The boat
ys: sa1V By ss y
ss 'sss ,r @ ssg
20 y built as one Of them; and that when Crawford
pssss his agreement with Small, he knew Of Smau's
Ssa sss ss
vessel on either ground claimed BY them They also
claimed that Crawford Terry hsdany l!eo they
their er.dssss Thers 70 statute law OF New Jersey
plies furnished And 1t WAS admitted BY the parties
that the boat while building was the property Of Small
Held BY the CourtThat It Is very clear that the Ad
mray law creates lien in favor Of party who DOES
work or furnishes supplies to foreign ship and that
mining the question whether such Lien created also ia
favor Of the builder Of ship o. we as ct him who far.
Court not controlled By the restricted Aarssy Courts
OF Engand q exercised by them under tbs supervising
power q Of the Common Law Courts. The rules and
principles OF the Admiralty law administered By the
more in Conformity to the prinopss the evi law -
rope. That according to that law, the interests OF
shipping and ships, not only In their creation but
IN their preservation, are Of paramount Importance
that the importance Of this consideration ID the
why the material man who furnishes supplies for the
preservation Of the ship Ii entitled to LEN and there
10 the like resson for giving lien to him who has fur
nshed necesssries to bring the ship into beng That
the Enelish law gives only the common law, posses
sorry to mstsrial man or to . builder, but the
lien to those who build supply repair ship at least
whore she ID foreign ship This Is expressly stated
By Boulay Patty and this principle acted upon for
long time by the Englsh Admiralty before IL was over
thrown By the Courts OF common law That the right
Of material who has furnished necessares for The
preservation Of foreign ship, has bsen repeatedly a.
knowledged By the Admiralty Corr.: % this Country
And :. 80. Exists why carpenter should
have lien that which by his work and materials he
creates that which he preserves after he has
sted IT, and By the general maritime Law len exists
the n other Court mi hold