Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1886-01-14

IMPORTANT ADMIRALTY DECISION.
Before the adjournment of the y. ,. .ou' :,
in this city Tuesday Judge HugneS n'eu
the following opinion in the aon'i"''' oa,o
of MCGEE vs. the brig Agnes bai'o"' "D'''
he decided last week:
IT 6 District COURT, EASTERN DISTRICT
or VIRGINIA, AT ALEXANDRIA,
W January 5, 1856.
,1ocee & Son va. the brig Agnes Barton
In admiralty.
The brig Agnes Barton came INTO the port
Of Philadelphia in the spring of 1888 need
ing repairs and an outfit of sails. Her nome
port was Baltimore, and her owners were
all residents of that city. One OF ihese' ::
II. Travers, was managing owner, ana naa
an interest Of seven-thirty- seconds IN the
vessel The brig lay in the port OF fhlla-
delphia while the needed repairs were put
uDon her. While she was there the lloel-
ants, VIM. MCGEE & Son. of Baltimore, con-
tracted with S. H. Travers, her managing
owner to furnish her with suit Of sails for
5000 the amount now libelled for. The
sails were duly furnished and were deliver
ed ON board the brig while still az phliadel-
phia.
Trayers gave in settlement for the price
of the sails the note of his firm, S. H. Ira
vers & Son, at four months, endorsed by his
son. Geo. c. A. Travers. MCGEE & Son
took this note, and gave receipt, rectlng
its conteuts and adding the following clause:
(which satisfies u' for said bill and all
claims against said brig excepting the inter-
est owned By Samuel Ii. Travers."
To meet the contingency OF decision that
The lien for the sails was not as upon for
eipn vessel but as upon home vessel and
therefore no! only such rs the laws OF Mary
land allow upon vessels owned within the
State. the hDelant duly complied with the
requirements of the Maryland statute as to
the registration Of such liens.
The foregoing were the material facts OF
the case.
Hughes, J. think the lien of MCGEE &
Son for the amount of their bill was upon
this brig as foreign vessel She was at
at Philadelphia, a foreign port, and she was
furnished while there with the sails.
The circumstance that the sails were con-
1racted for and made at the home port Of
the vessel merely confuses and does not
change the nature OF the case. The lien at
tached while the vessel was in foreign
mort. 1t attached as upon foreign vessel.
It's character was determined by the deliv-
ery of the sails at that port and could not
were made at the home port under con-
tract also made there.
1t is useless, therefore, to consider the
technical objections raised by counsel for
claimants on the form and time of the Dego-
tiation Of the lien in Baltimore. fit were
necessary TO do So would hold that the
registration was in accordance with the re-
quirements of the Maryland statute on the
subject, and that the lien was good, as
lien upon home vessel. But this is a mat.
ter of no Importance. The sails were de-
livered and received by the brig at the port
of Philadelphia where she was foreign
vessel and the lien for their price WAS that
which is given by the general maritime
law. The case is all tours with that of the
Sarah J. Weed, 2 Lowell, ,535, in which the
ruling was as I have just announced.
The serious question in the case is upon
the receipt given by MCGEE & Son in ts king
the four months note of Travers s. Son. 1t
is useless to say that the mere taking of a
note for maritime claim does not release
the lien Of the creditor of q ship for his
claim. The note is but an evidence of the
debt, and does not operate as q nova lion of
il; certainly not, as between the oWne OF a
ship and its creditor 1t concludes bot par.
ii, - as to the account due aud postpo.1es the
right of the creditor to enforce his lien. If
the time for which the note is made to run
is too long, other creditors of the shi p may
be thereby let in to priority over the holder
of the nose. But the general proposit ion is
true, that the taking ola note does u OF re-
lease the lien of a creditor Of the ship for
his demand, as between the owner ard the
creditor.
There must be an express release, else
the lien stands, notwithstanGip = the taking
of the note.
In this case, therefore, the question is
Did tho libelant release his lie u upon the
brig when he set out in his receipt for the
>ote that it satisfied him fol, his claim
40, inst the brig excepting the interest Of
Tray, MS; which was seven-thirty seconds of
the yess u
It is ve~y certain that he re. served his
lien unon III, seven .thirty-secondt A lien,
isin its essence remedial right. therefore,,
in reserving his .ien upon an undiv ided part
of The vessel, the !. bellant reserved his right
of attaching under tie lien. to the fu. IL extelt
necessary to making good his lieu u, Don the
seveu-thirty. secon DIS. AS the vessel is in
divisihle, and the lien as to part cannot
be enforced exec pit upon the vessel as
whole, and there was an express res'erVa.
ton of the lien as to the part, am OF
opinion that the right to libel the vessel, 30
far from being expressly released, was e4-
prcssly reserved
If it were neces ,ary in this case, think
should be warrant ed in holdin 9 that If the
share of Travers W. ere insufficient on sale
of the vessel to p reduce the amount due
MCGEE. he would, u nder all the proofs that
have been SUBMIT ed, be entitled to i;,ll
payment out of the genera. proceeds of sale.
But, as there ia no doubt but that the
share OF Travers will fully pay the claim of
the libellent with Interest and costs, this
question is not at all likely to arise
I will decree for the libellant in accord
ance with these, views of the law of the
case, and for a sale o. the vessel
The WEATHER AND 1>HE RIvER.-There
was but little difference IN the temperature
last night from that of thu night previous,
the mercury again sinking 70 Zero utterly
ignoring the weather burea rs progresses.