New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-02-14
THE COURTS.
United states Circuit Court, iIOn, ". b.
Woods Presiding Judge.

I
Louisiana Mutual Insurance Company Of
! New Orleans vs.. Mrs Behn, Mrs. A;,rsh ct
! ai-An oral Judgment was rendered in this
! ease. diSmissing the appeal taken BY the
! Louisiana Mutual Insurance Company on
I the ground of want of Jurisdictions.
| George :. PIERCE the only witness Of the
| government in the case Of the United States
: ys. the master and owners of the steamer
! Leo. having died. on motion, of United
! States Di.tric. Attorney Beckwita the suit
! therein was discontinued
| Martin. Cobb &, Co. VS.. T.. Sioors: Mar.
| tin. Cobi, 4 Go. ~. :. Andecs1r.-~In the
! absence of the counsel for the defendants.
I ;hcs.. casc.-th. attorneys ior IA. plaintiffs
! being the sam: in both-were. after waiving
I of the jury trial. submitted t" thu. consider
alton OF the court.
I Robert Maxwell W. the -se1mee Robert
! Powell. Woods, J.-This - an admiralty
| appeal The libelant claims to secover the
sum OF s345 II. by reason of the failure of
! defendant 70 deliver good&s OF that values
| the property of iibelant. which the defend
! ant received at Shreveport. aad undertook
to transport to jefferson. Texas. %
| One Nicholas Quizz"rs. cl'lniant. intere
1 venc~ and defends npo.s the Sollo~in.
grounds:
! Firs:-E.ca,,se libcians has failed to c.-
! tabl;,il his demand by prooto
ScconG-f;ecauSts he refstsaS to do Justice
I Ov gir.n. credit for the freight earned by
! the steamer in transporting the goods OF
| lih"'nn'.
! Thir.i-Bccause YihcYant should have pro
ceedrGl against the steamer CaddO. with
which the contract es aareightmcnt was
! made and by whose masteS the bill OF lad"
! ing WAS sICntde
I Fourth-Hera,,-,e tn. claimant purchased
the steamer Powell st a judicial sale made
by o,lcy Hf the Fourth District Court of
the parish Of OrlcaaSo in the State of Loui-
| Siani. III an action OF foreign ATTACHMENT
| against the owners
Fifth-Because the proceeds Of said
! judicial sale We're also absorbed by the
| claims of priv legged creditors. so that the
attaching creditors received nothing ARA
if libelant had intervencd in the ease IS
could have received nothing.
Sixth-Finallv. because the NbrYans -l,s
! slept 1lpun his claim. and is not enI!t!cA to
,hc aid OF this courte
OF these detenses in their order: sirst--.
| am satisfied, from a, careful scrutiny ot
! th. testimony that the claim OI IL
, belans IS established. Th. captain of the
| Powell admitted i'll substance the receipt of
| the goods for carriage from Shreveport to
| Iettcy cy.on-promiSed 10 bring them up on
his nexs "Trip, and failed t" do SO. agreed I"
pay t!.ei. value. and said he had paid il I"
| Phelps 4 Co. correspondents Hf ibelant i'll
Shr.srpoISe which was 1al-" 1h" yIi,'e OF
The. good. is sufficiently established by the
testimony "i iihelant and of his clerk.
| Second-If the setrndant ha. any claim
! ,rain,. i4belan, for freight. il should have
been -. mp NJ cross libel: and 'hc ti,i'lr.
~. Defendant y. claimant I" d" this can no'
be alleged ~ ! r..son ~hy Nb.!.nt -h"uid
! Cot r(~'bv"'.
Third. seems el~ goods y? ii'.!hns
veg shipped az New orleans ON board the
steamer Cadd.. and Il bill of la'iin. given
by .ls,. C.dl... ~ Shreveport .lir tiip "f
A 4 sa,, ,t,.1s nj fls ,nntS with
the bill ~ fading. We're transferred :" I'll"
! Thomas Powell. She carried 'he larger
part %: ~. goods :" Jefferson. but failed Z"
deliver ei,' portion sued ;"r III this action.
Here tl!.s mast". presented the bill of
Iihns. issued hv the C.dd". and dcpanded
treich; of the libclant. II seems very slt.,c
THAT in undertaking 20 carry the goods iroIA
\ Shreveport t".ctier>oI,s under fht1 Caddo
1 bill at latiinc: she assumed tnc sutic. and
! RESPONSIBILITIES Of = common carrier. ana
after delivering a portion OF The good, ana
demanGin. freight. II Is too late tor hey I"
claim exemption from liability and 10 turn
/! the 1.,cl.,nt u.vr - .h- C...lo .or Ais 1.n1
edv.
foGe:'-T!l~ ynaia and interesting lucs
Zion III ei!,e .as.. IL whether 'h. sale ot the
Powell. IA q proceeding br foreign attach
I meur i'll ehc Stat.roult Ut Louisiana. dIVrsts
J thu. lien OF the. iibelant..
The. Secord of the state G"u!9. which !l..
Been submitted to us, shows that fhe suit il
attachment WAS brought .v plaintiffs I"
euro the amount OF u debt duo generally
from ehe owners of the Powell :" plaintiff:
| that said owners We're nonfr>ident- ot IA.
| State OF I.ouS>ailao but that they had prop
ertv. 50 wit: the steamboat Thomas Powell.
| situated en the parish Ot Orleans. in said
| State. The steamer was seized by virtue o:
| Il writ of attachment and WAS sold. Certain
scamen and material were interviewed, and
| tb.;, III, I,.t sl. l;rh
the steamer sold.
A general creditor of a ship owner has II"
| lien on IA vessel when she is attached by %
| process Of common law court. Nothing is
taken 6r can he taken but the interest of
the owner remaining after the maritime
laws are satisfied. Seizure can not reach
| them. The thin. taken is no more interest
in the ship. and the only interest which this
| process can seize is a secondary subordinate
| interest. subject to the superior and para
mount claims OF the lien holders.
Under attachment process from the State
| court, nothing was legally III custody OF the
Sheriff but the interest of the owner. what
| ever that might prove to be after the liens
| were adjusted.
Common law proceeding wonld not be
proceeding in ren, to charge the vessel with
a debt for the creditor had no lien upon
| her, and the court no jurisdiction over any
thing but the owners residue.
The whole ship could not be sold to
| convey absolute right of the property to the
| purchaser. The constitution and laws of
| the United States confer the entire ad-
| miraity and maritime jurisdiction expressly
| upon the courts of the general government,
and admiralty and maritime liens are there
| fore outside of the line which marks the
| authority of a common law court OF the
! State, and excluded from its jurisdiction.
And if a common law court sells the vessel
to which lien has attached upon condem-
| nation to pay the debt, or on account of its
| persnabe condition, it must sell subject to
the maritime liens, and they would adhere
! to the vessel in the hands OF the purchaser.
| and of those claiming under him. Second
Summers, 80: Wares Reports, li3; Second
BOliv:er: AlGotts Reports. 40.
While. therefore, we hold that Judicial
| sale by order of the State court conveyed
the title of the owners and tho purchasers,
| it did not divcst the maritime liens. but the
! purchaser took tho vessel subject to the
! liens.
The defense that the proceeds OF the YES
| sci under the sale in IA State court. were not
| sufficient to pay the preferred liens 1t seems
! to me- i, not tenabe Now non c0nstat, that
| the vessel would have brought sufficient to
! pay all the liens if sold by order of the
| Court OF Admiralty. by which title Ot the
| steamer itself would have been conveyed.
! The purchase price at Il sherltfs sale may
, have been insufficient to pay the claims OF
! intervening lien holders because the pur-
bered titla. Il only remains to consider
L., H.,