Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-11-06
Iolxi SELL THE MARBLRHEAD.
The Cruisers Builders, Says w. H.
StaytOn, Can Dispose of Her.

| The Cruisers Builders, Says w. H.
StaytOn, Can Dispose of Her.
In order to learn II there exist valid
grounds upon which the Navy Department
can deny the right of the Palmer Company
to sell the cruiser Marblehead to the Brazil
| Ian government, a reporter for the New
York Times requested an opinion Of Attor-
ney William H. Stayton Of New York. Mr..
Stayton was assistant advocate general of
the Navy Department during Secretary
Tracy's term Of Office. Mr.. Stayton author
lied the following statement:
/ There Is no doubt in law that ship
builder has the right to sell an unfinished
vessel which he is building under contract
with the Navy Department. This right in
the shipbuilder is based upon the elemen-
tary principle Of law that a contract is
not binding on one party until it is binding
on the other.
''If the unfinished vessel belongs to the
government SO that the shipbuilder has
no right to dispose of it, then conversely
1t belongs to the government so that the
government has no right to reject II, and
as by Its contracts the government specifi-
cally retains the right to reject a vessel
after her final completion and trial, 1t nee
essarily follows that until actual accept
ance title to the vessel has not passed to
the government. The government tacitly
recognizes this point in another way in its
contracts by an insurance clause requiring
the shipbuilder to keep the vessels insured
during the course Of construction. When
the vessels become the property of the
United States they are no longer insured,
but SO long as they are the property of the
builder they are insured.
There has never in this country been
feel perfectly safe in expressing such an
unqualified opinion, for the reason that this
subject has been one of much discus
sion, in legal text books. 1t seems that In
til about 1920 the English courts and the
courts of the United States agreed that
where vessel was built under contract,
and partial payments made from time to
time. title to the vessel remained in the
builder until the final acceptance. About
that year. however. the English courts, in
what Is called the Woods case, decided that,
though ordinarily the title to a chattel con-
structed under such contracts did not pass
until its completion, yet that in the case of
ship 1t ought to be held that the title to
each particular completed part of the ship
passed when the partial payment therefor
was made.
This doctrine, however, was expressly
stated by the court to be an exception to
the general rule Of law and the exception
has been uniformly rejected in this coun-
try l77-
TN Andrews VS.. Durant, the highest
court of this state held that 1t is the gen.
eral rule of law that, under contract for
building vessel, no property vests in the
person for whom 1t Is to be built until it
Is finished and delivered; that the rule is
the same where certain portions of the con-
tract price are agreed to be paid, AMI are
paid, to the builder at certain specified
stages of the work, and where an agent Of
the person for whom the vessel is to be
constructed Is to and does superintend and
approve the materials and the work; and
hat
build for B a vessel of specified dimensions
and to deliver it to him complete on a day
named, for a specified price. three-fifths Of
which was to be paid at certain stages Of
the work and the remaining twc-flfths
when the vessel was completed and deliver
ed, Workmanship and material to be in
spected and approved by BIS superintendent
as the work progressed no property I'm the
vessel passed to b until after the final
completion and acceptance of the vessel
and that A had the right to freely dispose
Of the vessel after 1t had been three-flfths
completed and the three-fifths of the pur-
chase price had been paid.
I'm another New York case, Merritt vs.
Johnson, the vessel was to be paid for in
three equal installments as the work pro-
crossed. and after one-third OF the vessel
had been completed and one-third of the
that the vessel was the property of the
builder. and not of the person who engaged
1t to be constructed
THE rule Of law established by these and
similar cases is well settled in this coun-
try"
The Marblehead could be made ready for
sea in two weeks.