New-York tribune., 1867-08-01
CIVIL COURTS.
SUPREME COURT-CuAMBERs-Jus SUTHERLAND.
THE STATE LIEN LAW on YESSELS--ITS CON-
sTITUTIoNALITY AFFIRMED.
.fsvf ftsga. Gr

THE STATE LIEN LAW on yEssELs--ITs CON.
sTITUTIONALITY AFFIRMED.
In re- the steamship CifcAssian, &C.
In this case it may be remembered that tbs
purchesers under the state Lien law the original owners
es ne sR %ee 81 al t eonteHd deSy for the 6t
steamship Circassan. Tho main point IN the ese wsA
vessel it being claimed that all vessels came under the
exclusive jurisdiction oI the United states Mr Justice
sutherland has denied al the motions MS reasons Deng
substantially rs follows:
The steamship CircasSian is domestic vessel owned
issued by Justices O the Supreme Court, under the New
York Act Of April o. 62 Sess Laws OF 1882 p ESQ., were
the vessel, III her home port or for work cone, or
materials other articles furnished for or toward repair
ing, furnishing equpping her in her home port The
Supreme Court Of the United States in 1879 In tue
OF The Cen smith, 4Wheaon 1881 and n 1851 In the case
OF the steamer St Lawrence Il Black 5 fy recognized
the right OF State TO create BY State Legislature Hens IN
for domestic vessels in the home port. In the
case OF the Gen. Smith, it was held, that
been furnished at her home port, Baltimore, there was
by the general maritime law implied licn aud the de-
cree of the Circuit Court affirming the proceedings IN rem
reversed the ground that there was statute OF
Maryland creating lien.
geson intimation, In any reported case, that New
York any other O the States has not the right to give
and to enforce l rem by IT. own process Iens Tor sup
plies and repairs as TO domestic vessels In the home
nation IN any reported case h1t the adoption ana en-
forcement ll the alteration OF the 18th Admiralty rule
state liens did or could the State OF It's process
proceeding ia did, or could affect the right OF the
the party having lien TO resort to and use the
state S S Ss @ m & M Of Hs HOse 70 IN SU
reported case that state could not give aud enforce IN
lien. when or where II was not claimed by the su-
preme Court Of the United states that there was an I'M
Piled lien 10y the general maritime law code on arising,
by the rnara!ime law from the contract IT.,
of the United States had given the Supreme Court Of
the United States Jurisdiction of all cases of admiralty
aud maritime lurisdieton the 9Th section OF the judi.
Courts Of the United states should have exclusive
original eognizanee OF all civil causes OF admiralty
OF "a common law remedy, and the supreme Co0rs
OF the United States, IN 1873, IN the case OF the Gen.
Smith Wheaton, by Judge story declared that though
admiralty had general Jurisdiction in OF material
men by which 1t could entertain suit in perSondH and
or TO or FOR snip In the port OF where she did
not belong the general maritime Law save the party
maintain suit m rem In admiralty To enforce his lien.
yGt tha LOT and IN the port or State 70
proceeding or suit in rem In admiralty on the ground Of
lien implied by the general maritime law This case
and this doctrine recognized by the Supreme COut
OF the United States directly and indirectly in many re-
ported cases
dent OF express contract special legislation. there
be, icHOu % no process or proceeding n rem against
vessel for repairs supplies at all events, the Supreme
Court OF the United States have assumed throughout that
there could not be IN Admiralty The question then is
has the supreme Court OF the United states decided
or established any principle Oh Admiralty lurlsdio-
tieD, inconsistent with the doctrine that By
is implied lien Tor repairs or supplies to or for domes
tic vessel IN her home port ard tHat without lien there
such repairs or supplies have looked somewhat into
the reported for the history Of the theory ana
practice OF Admiralty jurisdiction in the United States,
and though find that history suggestive Of tie general
tendency Of authority 10 enlarge itself aud though n
Justices Field and Miller in these cases, and
perhaps l should say the general tenor OF
Jurisdiction Of the District Courts, would at first
lead TO ne conclusion that Admiralty jurisdiction, under
any extent, even for the purpose of personal udg
nen ong necessarily excluded state statutory remedy
orDr fu because W
in most eases am Admiralty remedy. Yet careful CON
sheraton OF these opnos and OF the history OF Ad
miralty jurisdiction and practice IN the United states
in the reported cases has led me quite clearly 10
the conclusion that il was never intended to carry
the doctrine principle OF exclusiyeness TO TINS exten
that t intended TO declare any principle OK
excusiveness inconsistent with State statutory liens and
State statutory proceedings t rem To enforce ve tor
supplies pairs domestic vessels IN the home
port, though think IL must DO conceded that was In
tended In both TO declare principle Of exclusive
for supplies or repairs TO or for foreign vessels
have not been able TO see how
can grant, perhaps should say decide either OF the mo-
tons in the matter OF the steamship CrcasSian. These
~ V0ns LIONS are not made IN any aeto9 ltey are are not sGs
tho warrant under which the vessel was last sold by the
tees OF the supreme Court under the Act OF April a.
1852 sections and 81 rs Officers or Commissioners The
under the order for the sale 10 the officer who granted
the Ordor for the SALE and subsequent sections provide
the SALE Certainly until this ISSUE the Court be
possessed Of the for the purpose OF making
OF the Justice or officer who Issued the warrant to make
any order not specified or provided for by the Act.
Certainly in nc view of the case, or Of the con-
tested questions OF fact could order the Marshal OF the
Eastern District TO abandon his claimed seizure and Gus
t0dy OF the vessel nor do how could enforce sncn
an 0fder should make it, and, certainly II had tne
power ought not 10 order the purchaser the Shens
sale to pay the balance his bid until the Sheriff can
denver the Vesse unless, indeed the Sheriff could and
u sell SUBJECT TO the seizure by the Marshal and 20 ali
the claims and interests represented by him, but the
question OF law, whether he could regularly SELL ana
me question OF fact whether ne did SELL are two Oh
the questions which doubt my power effectively 10 de-
termlne M these notions and which doubt the pro
prety or regularity OF determining had the power
The result is that all the motions must be and are denied
without costs any either OF the parties aud without
prejudice To any other future action proceeding that
UNITED STATES DISTRICT CoURT-IN BASKnurrcr.
Petitions in bankruptcy were filed by Loeb
Hess Emil Han. Henry skelton, John NJ. Toss, and
ward b. stokes, all OF thisclt
COURT CALENDAR-THIs DAT
suPRRMR CoURT-CnAxzEEl LEosARD,
s-wste ss al sgt Besrdmanl -Bslsnhe ct al sgt Heuy
eth les-shsfsr ct al agt Bruusr u
e2-p.ns ,gt ssrssburgsr ,s
l0o-0aynor GAynor loo-Arehef o al sst LsanenAa
l27-Bochs sgt KasssL =. Hh
ia'-ns E'"'E' S' n''''''