Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1868-01-09
LIENS ON STEAMERS.
An Important Decision I'm the
Law Court.

Yesterday JuuBe u ". IlcfcS, Va eho
Law Court, rendered the following de.
cision in the case of Messrs. Briggs Il
Peterson w. the ferry Peosia. 1t is
of general interest. This case was sub
mitted on demurrer to the jurisdiction of
the Court: FsneEr Fsw az
The case is commenced under the pro-
visions of the statute granting to mate
rial men liens on steam and keel boats,
for supplies furnished. 1t is sought in
this proceeding to enforce such a lien.
The demurrer is based upon the PROPOSE
ton (among others that the case is one
of admiralty cognizance, and that only
the United States District Court has ju-
risdiction oft. This is the only point
necessary now 70 be considered.
The first question, as to whether the
mode of proceeding authorized by the
statute is a proceeding in rem or in
personam, is answered by the cases Of
Hill VS.. Mills, 9 Hump, 629, and Green
law VS.. Potter, 5 Sneed, 800, in which
the Supreme Court styled it proceed
ing in rem. 1t is, then, not common
law remedy, and If it be case cognisa-
BILE at all in the Admiralty Courts of the
United States, those courts must have
exclusive jurisdiction of it, under the
decisions of the United States Supreme
Court in the Moses Taylor and AID. Hine
cases, in Wallace. The petition shows
that the Peosta is steam ferryboat
owned in Memphis, plying between
Memphis and point in Arkansas, and
that the supplies were furnished in
Memphis, her home port 1t is
insisted for plaintiff that, as there
is no lien in admiralty for sup.
plies furnished to boat in her
home port, there is no jurisdictionihere.
The maritime law, which, by the dec-
sions Of the Supreme Court, has been
extended to all navigable waters of the
United States, gives lien for supplies
furnished to a boat in foreign port,
because of the presumption that the
credit was given not to the boat but to her
owners. But the difference between the
cases is one not Of jurisdiction but of
practice. The lien was given in the one
case, that it may be enforced by pro-
ceeding in rem at was refused in. the
other, and AAe material man is left to his
remedy in personam. But the jurisdic-
ton Of both Gases is alike in the
Admiralty Court, which pursues a
different mode of practice simply,
according as the maritime law gives
lien or not. This distinction is
illustrated in late case cited
by counsel for plaintiff The steamer
St. Lawrence, Blacks Report 52S, an
opinion of Chief Justice fancy delivered
in 1861. The point before the court was
construction of rule Of practice in
admiralty, raising very similar ques-
ton to the one at the bar. For a long
time the United States District Courts,
under rule in admiralty established,
had enforced liens established by State
legislation in cases where the maritime
law gave no lien. In 1853, in case re-
ported in Newberry's Admiralty Re-
port, 436, the United States District
Court for the District of Louisiana
enforced the lien given by the Tennessee
statute. The case of the st. Lawrence
was snch q case, supplies having been
furnished her in home port, and the
State law of New York giving lien there.
for. The admiralty rule enforcing State
liens was abrogated in 1859, about which
time the case of the st. Lawrence arose.
1t was urged on argument that the rule
extended the jurisdiction of the Admit
raj Courts beyond the constitutions
grant, and was therefore void. Bat the
Supreme Court decided, in the opinion
above named, that the rule established
matter of practice only; that the mari
time law gave the jurisdiction to the
court; that the rule provided only for a
proceeding in rem, where it would other
wise be in personam, and enforced lien
established BY local law in cases where
the maritime law gave none; and that
it had been abrogated, not because un :
warranted, but because it had been found
an inexpedient and clumsy rule
of practice. Applying these prin-
ciples to the case before us, it is evil
dent that if the Admiralty Courts
have Jurisdiction of this case, the ques-
ton of the lien is not at all material.
This boat is plying between different
States, and the contract is made with
her master for the necessary supplies,
clearly maritime contract, binding the
owners in an action in admiralty in per
sonam. Under the decision in the AID.
Hine case, that the admiralty jurisdiction
is exclusive, it follows that this court
can entertain no suit upon this contract
except one seeking to enforce a common
law remedy. The demurrer is therefore
sustained and the suit dismissed.