The national Republican., 1867-01-25
The Courts.
SUPREME CoURr OF THE UNITED SrAry

OOUhT THE DTATkS-
| THURSDAY, January ~, 1857.
On motion Of Mr.. Carlisle, Samuel L. Phillips,
esq, ofWashington city, d. O., was admitted on
attorney and counsellor Of this court
No. lls. AlonIo Campbell, plaintiff In error, vs.
the city Of Kenosha. The argument Of this caus,
was concluded BY Mr.. Lynds, Of counsel for the
plaintiff In error.
No. 1Is, John @. Hansbrough,s Of al, appellants,
vs.. Philip +. W. Peck This cause was submitted
to the court on printed arguments by Mr.. AIRING.
ton, Of counsel for the appellants, and by Mr..
Hayne, Of counsel for the appelises.
No. 40. Nathan Bradley, claimant, DO, vs..
the Corn Exchange Inland Navigation and Fire In.
surance Company.
No. 1al. James H. woodworth, claimant appel.
| liant, vs.. same, and
gusd By Mr. Rae, Of counsel for the appellsss, and
submitted on printed argument by Mr.. Hibbard,
Of counsel for the Appellants.
No. I24. James B. Townsend, OF al, plaintiffs
In error, vs.. George @. Greedy This cause was
submitted to the court the record, with leave To
counsel to file printed argument within ten days.
No. l25 II. Mandlebaum, et al, plaintiffs In
error, U. the People Of the United States in the
Territory Of Nevada This cause was submitted
to the court on printed argument BY Mr. Coz and
Mr., Wilson, Of counsel for the plaintiffs In error
no counsel appearing for tho defendants In error
Adjourned until tomorrow at II o'clock.
Pn=s-MaItiRs LIsn-- Can the Latter 30 En-.
forced AgdinJt Prise WIihin the Cognizanee Of
he Court 2-Harkan ct al, %. TIE United States
and A. J. Addrlyi Claimant Of Stedmship Nas.
,au.-on tho l7th Of June, 1895, the appellants
fled libel In the District Court Of the United
States for the Southern District Of New York, as.
serting maritime lien on the steamship Nassau
for repairs done and materials furnished to and for
that vessel at Wilmington, Delaware, in July,
1860. Monition was issued aud the vessel was at.
taohed by the marshal, who returned that whom
the attachment was made the ship was "in the
| custody of the prize commissioner ~
| On behalf Of the Government and claimants mo-
tion was made to dismiss the libel, which was
granted, the court saying; II hold that the matter
charged In the libel presents within the jurs-
dcton Of the prize court that the lbsllants In this
case have no authority In law to attach In private
action, vessel or her cargo which is under arrest
as price and that, III the hbeants have any legal
or equitable demand against the vessel proceeded
against In the prize court, the remedy must be
sought In that tribunal. Tho decree was affirmed at
the circuit and thence came here, the appellants
making the following statement Of facts In the
month Of June, 1860, the steamer Gordon (after.
wards the Nassau entered the port Of Wilmington,
Del, In q damaged condition. and application was
made by her master to the appellants to make the
necessary REPAIRS which they did on tho security
| Of their general maritime lien to the amount Of
l9,87236. or this amount the owners, who 70.
sided at Charleston, subsequently, paid . portion,
leaving q balance Of over $40 900 due at the COM
mencement Of the rebellion.
In consequence Of the civil war and the suspen.
sion Of the authority Of the Federal courts In
Charleston and Savannah, the ports to which the
Gordon belonged, II become impossible for the ap.
pellants to enforce their lion against the steamer
and nothing morS was heard Of her until she was
brought into the port Of New York, under the name
| Of tho Nassau, In charge Of prize crew.
It Is oontended, as matter Of law that this order
Of dismissal Of the appellants libel was unwarranted
and irregular There was no proof before the Dis
i trict Court that the Nassau was lawful prize The
| GnvaFnmant inlaFVanAd onlV nnt tha hat
the vessel was IN alleged prise Of war. The fact
that she had been captured by q national ship was
not Of ITSELF evidence Of her liability to capture
could II constitute bar to the libellants right
to assert their lien claim in the admiralty court
Until the captors establish their case against the
vessel in the prize court, the libelants were snti
| tied to tho remedy sought.
II the district court had ordered the libelants to
stay proceedings until tho questions Of prize no
prize had been determined, or had required them
their lien, there might have been some show of
regularity. To dismiss their libel Summarily with
out hearing on the merits and without alleging or
showing the remotsst irreguarity In their proceed
ings, was error.
The position that the prize court will not
take cognizance Of latent liens was not tenabe In
the present case. Tho question did not arise in q
prize court or prize suit. Only two questions
could arise upon the libelants action In the admi.
rally oOurt frat, as to tho libellants' claim and
lien secondly, was the vessel or was she not lawful
prize Of warl-had that been set up by the Govern.
msnt as defence in the action. Assuming that
the right Of prize superseded private liens, proof
that the Nassau was lawful prize was necessary In
order to oust the admiralty court Of Its jurisdic-
tion and TO bar the libellants' right to decree.
Tho libellants and the owners Of the Nassau were
citizens Of this Republic. The lien was acquired on
the natural presumption that the general maritime
lien law, which conceded II, would prevail when.
ever 1t was necessary to enforce 1t. II the owners
meanwhile, chose to forfeit their allegiance and be.
come traitors to their Government, the rights Of
the libsllants as loyal citizens could never be
analogy between this case and tho case Of the
aliens claim against the ship of foreign enemy;
yet It 10 upon the reported decisions 10 such cases
alone that the Government relies for sustaining the
eonhscation Of the ibellants rights in this case.
The hbsllants In this case are not neutral aliens