The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1874-01-19
THE COURTS.
CIVIL AND MARITIME CONTRACTS.

Lions ON Foreign Vessels in Foreign
Ports-Masters or ships Not to Exceed
Their observation-disclosures Deci-
sion by Judge Blatchford.
Judge Blatchford on Saturday rendered his decis-
ion in the OF J. H. Fechtenberg and J. A. Loven
green VS. The British bark Woodland, her tackle DC
The libel sets forth that this is action founded
upon contract civil and maritime; that in January
1871, the Woodland being in the port OF St Thomas
in the West Indies, and standing in need OF
advances for repairs and supplies, dis
bursements and charges, j.. Niles Co.,
merchants in St. Thomas, advanced to the
master OF the vessel for The purposes Of the vessel
and on the credit OF the vessel and owners the
snm OF $4,000 "a. for which the master drew his
two drafts or bills Of exchange upon the owners,
dated January 25 1871, Tor s., 600 in American
gold coin, payable ten days after sight, and for
81 6O6 "a, in American gold coin, payable days
after sight, whereby he pledged the vessel freight
and cargo for the payment Of the drafts, and gave
to W nomsoeyer might be the holders of the drafts
a lien upon the vessel, freight and cargo. That
Niles Co. took up said money on the drafts OF the
the said drafts aud sand demand for repairs
and supplies, disbursements and charges and
advances and the lien therefor upon the
bark, freight and cargo, and that the hbelants
advanced SAID money on the credit OF the vessel
and cargo and freight, and are owners OF the lien.
pairs, disbursements and charges were material
and necessary lor the vessel, without which she
could not safely proceed on her intended voyage
and earn freight and passage money, and that the
whole amount Of the advances, in American gold
coin, is due and unpaid to the ibellants; that
neither OF the drafts has been accepted or paid,
although duly presented to the owners OF the
sell and that the bellants the legal owners and
holders thereof The libel prays process against
The answer OF the owners OF the bark being the
same persons who were her owners at the time Of
TRANSACTIONS Ia
allegation OF the first article Of the libel. 1t ad-
mits that the bark was at the port of St. Thomas
in January, 1871; that while the bark was at st.
Thomas her master drew three drafts on her own
ers and delivered them to the firm OF ]. Niles Co.
either vessel cargo, and denies that J. Niles Il
Co. took up the money on said drafts OF
the libelants, or assigned TO nbellants the
drafts, the alleged demand for repairs,
supplies disbursements, charges or advances, or
the alleged lien therefor, and denies that the
alleged advances for which the drafts were
given were made for the purposes OF the
vessel or on her credit. 1t AYERS that a large
portion OF tue alleged advances, If made at all,
were made for the pretended purposes OF the cargo
OF the vessel and on the credit Of such cargo, and
neither the vessel nor the freight is liable for the
case. There are various other allegations in the
answer some OF which are to the effect that the
ses to o, be so and
were 10 share In the drafts, or the proceeds
thereof and BY reason OF such fraud the drafts
were void and Niles Il Co. and the lbellants never
mad any lien On the vessel.
The principal point upon which this case turned
Will be found in the concluding remarks Of the
Judge, as follows
In the present case the lbellants have put in ev.
dence the letter or December "a, 1870, from the
claimants TO the master. That letter was made
known TO j. Niles Co. and to the libeants. 1t
authorizes the raising OF the funds by drafts on
Heaney Parker, or by drafts on the claimants
and states that the claimants have no doubt that
the master Will be able to OBTAIN funds in that way
But III contempates, as the alternative means, only
Dottomry. 1t authorizes DOttomry II a resort to
drafts ia. But 1t authorizes only drafts a bot
tomry. 1t must be regarded as excluding the mas
ter from resorting to anything but crafts or bot
tomry, and as excluding him from resorting
or hypotnecatlon other than b0ttomry, or 20 the
creation OF such lien as Is asserted in this case,
whether an implied lien to result from the trans
actions or whatever lien the language Of the drafts
may be claimed TO create. j. Niles Co. and the
libellants declined TO take the masters drafts, as
authorized by the letter, and insisted that the
master should undertake to create lien on the
vessel by other means than bottomry. They in
as Defined and limited by the letter. 1t s OF no
consequence TO show that a resort to bottOmry
would nave been more expensive to the claimants.
They had right to limit the authority or
the master, and they did So 1t is or
Importance to so administer the maritime
law. that vessels In distress foreign ports shall
not be deprived OF the means OF obtaining relief;
but 1t Is no less important that masters OF vessels
and persons dealing with them, with knowledge
Of the Instructions under which they are acting
shall keep within the limits of such instructions.
AS this IS not a case communs turis, and both par
ties are foreigners, and the contract was made
with reference TO the law Of the vessels country,
IL Is case where the question OF the liability OF
the owners OF the vessel can with especial pro-
priety be determined by the tribunals OF such
country.
The libel must be dismissed with costs
J. kidgway for the hbeilants; 7. Scudder for
the claimants.