Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-11-18
COURT DECISIONS.
Notes Of Gases Recently Decided,
Which are Of Interest to
Our People.
DIGEsTED BY ". b MARTIN.
tExcluSIvely for Pilot,
DIGEsI'ED BY v. b MARTIN.
tEzcluuIvely for virr,n,an- Pilot,
STATE v. cox 6 SONS CO.
Supreme Court of New Jersey.
September q, 1899.

a CONTRACT FOR REPAIRS TO a
VESSEL. MADE AT HER HOME
PORT. is MARITIME IN ITS Ma
-TURE, AND PROCEEDINGS IN
REM FOR THE ENFORCEMENT
OF A LIEN GIVEN FOR ITS Sc
CURITY BY a STATE STATUTE,
CANNOT BE INSTITUTED BE-
FORE STATE TRIBUNALS.
This was suit to enforce II lien
against vessel for repairs made TO
her under ascontract made at her home
port and under State statute which
gave a lien for such repairs. The lower
court gave Judgment against the vessel
and the owners appealed.
The court says:
The principal reason assigned for set
Ting aside these proceedings is that the
statute under which they are taken so
far as 1t provides for the enforcement
of Il lien for repairs to vessel at her
home port by proceedings in rem be-
fore n State tribunal is void.
But the whole question was finally
put at est by the decision of the United
States Supreme Court in 1875, In the
case of The Lottawanna. In that case,
Mr.. Justice Bradley, delivering the
opinion OF the court, after stating that
II Is entirely settled that material men
furnishing repairs and supplies to
vessel at her home port do not ac-
quire thereby any lien upon the YES
sci by the general maritime law as re-
ceived in the United States, and that
no lien therefor had been created by
any act OF Congress, proceeds as fol-
lows: 1T seems to be settled in our
Jurisprudence that, so-lnng as Congress
does not intcrpoge to regulate the sub
jcct. the rights Of material men fur
nishinS necessaries to Il vessel in her
home port may be regulated in each
State by State legislation. State laws,
1t Is true, cannot exclude the contract
for furnishing such ncccssares from
the domain Of admiralty Jurisdiction.
for II Is a maritime contract, and they
cannot alter the limits of that jurisdic-
ton; nor can they confer 1t upon the
State Courts, SO IS to enable them to
proceed In rem for the enforcement of
liens created by such State laws, for 1t
is exclusively conferred upon the Dis
trict Courts of the United States. They
can only authorize the enforcement
thereof by common law remedies, or
such remedies as are equivalent there's
to. But the District Courts of the
United States. having Jurisdiction OF
the contract rs 4 maritime one, may
enforce liens given for Its security,
even when created by State laws" The
same doctrine was reafirmed in the
later case of Norton v. Swltaer. In
view OF these decisions of the United
States Supreme Court, 1t is quite ap-
parent that our act for the collection
of demands against ships, steamboats,
and other vessels, although unobjec-
tionable in some of its provisions, is
invalid to the extent that it attempts
to provide for the enforcement OF the
lien given by it for making repairs to
vessel in its home port. by proceed
ings in rem instituted in n State tri-
bunal and that such proceedings when
so instituted. are void. The proceed
ings under review will therefore be set
aside with costs.