The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1874-02-20
QUESTION OF MARITIME LIENS.

How They are Affected by state Laws
Important Question.
question OF considerable interest and impor-
lance was determined yesterday by Judge Woodruff.
in the United States Circuit Court. 1t ap-
pears that q vessel named the Edith
was sold under Q decree OF the United
States District Court. After paying out OF
the proceeds OF this sale certain claims OF the libel
lants there renamed in the registry OF the Court
a sum OF $3l.l7o 81 This amount was TO be dis
tributed among the claimants. A shipwright
named T. D. Poole and other persons presented 70
the Court petition stating that they had re-
paired the ship and furnished supplies for her use.
For these repairs and supplies they alleged that
they had . lien, and petitoned the Court that
the hen might be extinguished by the
payment Of its amount nom the sum remaining in
oy Daniel Tyler, the mortgagee OF three lourths
part OF the Edith. To Tyler was due sum which,
the vessel, exceeded the residue OF the amount al
ready mentioned.
snip through his assignee. John sed0wick. was
among those who resisted the claim OF the petit
toner. 1t was DECIDED by the District Court that
nor as between them and ths mortgage
and assignee in bankruptcy any title to
accordingly ordered that the surplus after
paying the mortgage on one-haf OF the snip should
ns
selves saut out from having any portion OF the sur.
plus sum, appealed to the United states Circuit
Court for an enforcement Of the rights which they
claimed. The decision Of Judge Woodruff, rem
dered yesterday Is written at very considerable
length. He uphOds the decision arrived al in this
case by the District Court His Honor states that
the Edith was . domestic vessel her owners re-
siding in New York. The repairs done upon her
were done by the petitioners while she was in
nayigabe waters At New York, by direction OF the
owner and master. Soon after the repairs were
done and the supplies furnished the PEE
titioners made an effort to enforce
Lien therefor upon the ship, proceeding
State or New York. In pursuance OF this statute
they sued out an attachment and, placing t in the
hands Of the Sheriff, they caused the snip to be
seized. The result was that what called sat
isfactory bOndn was gwen by the owner OF the
ship, and she was released from custody. Inde-
pendent OF the technical objection that the petit
TONERS do not come before the Court setting up
any lien on the ship acquired under the statute OF
the State Of New York, those proceedings to en-
force lien under the State law Will avail nothing
against the claim Of the mortgage. The statute
or the State OF New York IN question, so far as 1t
attempts TO give remedy Tor the enforcement OF
maritime contract, which Ia not according
to common law, Ia unconstitutional and
void, and the remedy given by statute for the
enforcement Of sucn contract Is not a common
law remedy That statute continues the Judged
was an attempt $50 far as maritime contracts were
embraced therein) to take jurisdiction from the
Admiralty Courts, and to prescribe new incident
to such contracts and enforce right conferred by
proceeding strictly in rem II the lien
exists as the creature OF the State law how Is 1t
be executed strike out the mode Of proceeding
for enforcement prescribed by the statute and
there Is no common law provided by which the
State Courts can give 1t any efficacy. And the
amount 1t is sought to enforce as lien In the
Courts OF Admiralty proceeds upon the idea that
the States can give to those courts jurisdiction
not known or pertaining TO them under the laws
holds tnat under the maritime laws, the petit
TONERS have not any lien upon the vessel