New-York daily tribune., 1856-09-26
LAW NIELLIGENCE.
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT CoURT-ssrr 2a-Before
ND MI

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT-srrr' -@-oe'''e
Judge NELSON o
DECISIONS OF ADMIRALTY CASES OF PPEAL-shir'
sTORFs s-IIES-cREDIT.
The Bark Prospect Joseph PeItin' and '" DEAN.
NpLsOS &. This is a libel for ships stores luI
1881 TIE amount Of the bill ls5 n. -.
credit Of the owners but il wAs charged aud rendered IN ne
u.ual vessel and owners and there i
law ari.ins ou Of tue ran.acon the credit was given 70
the vese The burden lay upon The Ie.pohdt 10 70
frua'ivev that gwen not 20 IN sp' bl 20 ti'
l. further insisted that there has beer Frra and
sb delsy In eufDrcir th lien aud that in the mean 'lm
portion of the vessel has passed BY transfer mo
ihe bands Of bna hde purchasers aud That II "o1A o
BIZ and unjust under these crcumstarce 20 eice th .
Tte burden Of this ground o deitnse also r'' uP'n 'He IT.
Ty make the ache. such in Nv would ePIrle
forfeit tie lien. On looking into the sPo''ie We hnd 10
TI ,bp len the prt soon afer The we're furnished
and for sht appears thi. b filed the hr't opP'l
tuui,y Afforded ser her refur IT, order 70 make on, ca
ia, vii have The fleet to avoid lien delay in enforcing
il sssust thc v's there must b. omehiiz not nan T.;
,nslosy Of limitations would hold thr ars
b.rredthc mus be- al unrasonab" neglect ana aes
aiiug 10 m" prejudice of third persons, alter OPP
W. ttink IN. deere below .ht should be affirmed
TRACT-JURTsDIcYioS
Walter :. Griffith and another sgt isaac Wortmsn .
NELSON, &. J.-This libel wa hed by "orthsh u
recover con services reudered IN the repairs OF IN"
sietuboai Oliver Ell.worth
ie braut b the owner oi shPyard osener VITA appAIa
tus eon, ng a railway .dr ana other fixtures cd I'M
purpose of hauling vessels cut oi the
and aiming them while the repairs are sena made
CeIisn ton charged regulated 10y the 'u
maze a fh. vessel f hauling up the ways and
time occupied while she t" re-
pair the 81 the yard and APPARATUS not
employed work but the repair made BY other ship
masiers. q, ~ the present instance , -
The main controversy ia the Court below related to ne terms
which The service b" rendered Judge Hall VINO
h settled the amount hi view Of the ey
deDce s63l a. and disposed interfere with H.
The proof eonfing and not clear either way III re-
tpect to the agreement.
The doubt have lad in upon the objection akey
jurisdiction Of the Court point taken In the Court
below Ii 10 claimed by the counsel for the espondrnts that
tie for the service rendered is 10 BE- regarded
a. q III
the Character Of the TRANSACTION there
would be difficulty In uPhoding the Jurisdiction On the
The repairs of tc vessel and IL much Of them
the sp The materials furnished by him
doubt that IN the where the ship
ter owning the ship yard and apparss employed 70 make
ques'i would enter INTO aud becoue
mart aud thus be the appropriate sub.c Of al
may lusdotiGn And the question 10 whether well
distinction exists between aacton OF that eharac
the The of the gard aud apparatus
together with hands supen;ends and conducts the
and lowering the vessel and asO Of hxng upon
tle preparatory TO the repairs
The service requires skill and experience IN the business ana
IL essential in the process repairs do not into the
whether this is contract made service rendered. on
the land the water il undoubtedly paskes Of boh-hr,
confess have much respect for this aud other
purpose s.ceaniug when the admiralty has and ha. not
Jurisdiction The aud character of The contract and Of
The service have always appeared be sounder guides for
determining the que srion
Although distinction may be- made between this
the and that where the
ship employed to rk. the repairs am inclined To
tlik that il 10 substantial and that To adopt would
BE- WELDING refinement that always reluc 10 ncor
into Judicial procccdng distinction TO BE- practical
should b. Of subsac~ and that would stkc the common
founded in reason and justice
must therefore, oSerruc the point Of jurisdiction, and afhrm
the lcCI'c,
N Tx A