The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-06-26
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.


BorToImV BoSD-D1scHARaE OF LIEN.
WASHINGTON, June rs, 1878.
The following opinions have been given In the
United states Supreme Court
No. Al. the snip Belle OF the sea OF al va
Henry W. Johnson and Andrew r. higgins. Ap-
peal from the Circuit Court for the Eastern DIS
trict or Pennsyvania.-Mr. Justice strong de-
llvered the opinion OF the Court. Very clearly
the snip was nob discharged from the bottomry
lien unless the bond was actually paid or unless
the nDeldnts agreed 10 pay IL and look TO the
frelghts, the general average ana the insurance
exclusively Tor their reimbursenlenL VI actual
payment there Is no evidence whatever; ON the
ARRIVAL or tue ship az New YORK Mr.. Il. A. Hammond
who had a mortgage upon her, winch with later
est amounted TO more tRsn $4,000. took Rer in o
by tue mortgage, and employed tue hbcHants 20
take up the b0ttomry bond 10 collect the freight,
the general average ana insurance, ana generally
to transact tue business Of tho vessel. SuOse
quently this arrangement Was assented 70 BY the
owner and the 0narterer. Accordingly the libel
oil it rom the Messrs. Ward, who neld it. ana pro-
ceeded TO adjust the business OF the ship, collect
Ing tno ireignts, general average ana insurance,
and making the necessary disbursement;
but a. they were unable 10 realize from
the insurance what was expected me
sums collected proved insufficient 10 pay
the expenses Of dlscharsng the snip. the commits
SONS and the necessary disbursements, together
VITA the bottomy bond. They new claim the
rtaht 10 apply whstevsr they ave been able 10
collect-hrst, 10 reimburse themselves. the com
missions necessary expenses snd disoursemens
end, to the discharge OF the bOttsmry lien, lOoN-
ing TO che shfp for thas portion OF the bond which,
by SUCH msrshang OF the und remains unpaid.
Aad such. we TANK are Their rights, u they have
not been surrendered. ~ the assignment OF the
pOttomry bond 90 them they became bottOmry
creditors, ana even n there nal been no snch as
slgnment ana had they Ia fact paid the bond at
the instance Of the owner and mertoagee.
they would have been entitled In equity 70
the right or the b0tt0nry creditor. Being thus
creditors by bottomry and also BY payment on
behalf OF tEe ship tor expenses, they have clear
Tight to apply whatever funds OF the ship come
INTO their hands-hrst, TO the satisfaction OF their
unsecured claims aud second 70 the bond, and
to look TO the shkp for aDY unpaid balance OF the
bottomry. II, however, wBen they undertook
their agency they agreed 10 pay the bond, and
thus discharge its lien, looking to the freigh, the
general average, and the Insurance alone for re-
imourseneRt or TO the personalfiaolnt Of the
owner as tue appellants insist they dld, tney can
not now set up lien on the ship. But we do not
think the evidence establishes any such agree
ment, and It's existence IL quite improbable. They
were adjdsters ef averages and they desrea
TO ne employed as sucn TO attend 70 the business
or the snip. TO secare such employment they
made me most favoraole representation Of what
they were aole and wliii1g 70 90. But they pro-
posed TO the Messrs. Ward, who held the BOND TO
take II pp, taking an aaaiaament Of IL beiora thar