Case Name: The Thames
Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1881-12-23
Citations: 10 F. 848
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Thames.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 10
Pages: 848–848

Head Matter:
The Thames.
(District Court, S. D. New York.
December 23, 1881.)
' 1. Maritime Lien — Services nr Procuring Charter.
A shipping broker has no lien on a vessel, in admiralty, for services in procuring a charter-party.
In Admiralty.
F. A. Wilcox, for libellants,
cited 5 Ben. 63, 70, 71; 2 Bed. Bep. 722; 4 Ben. 864; 8 Chi. Leg. News, 401; 3 N. Y. Wkly. Dig. 425; 2 Low. 482; 17 Wall. 666; 1 Dill. 460; 2 Low. 173; 5 Ben. 74, 78.
Michael H. Cardozo, for claimant,
cited 1 Abb. Adm. 340? 490; Etting, Adm. 69, 74; 2 Olcott, 120; 3 Mason, 6; 3 Sumn. 144.
(On general subject of maritime liens, see 21 Am. Law Beg. 1, 82; 16 Am. Law Bev. 193. — [Bep.)

Opinion:
Brown, D. J.
I am not prepared to assert jurisdiction in admiralty in this case. In the case of The Riga, L. R. 3 Ad. & Eecl. 516, the ultimate determination is not .reported, and the question depended wholly upon the statute, (3 & 4 Vict.) In this country such jurisdiction has never been asserted. In The Gustavia, Bl. & H. 189, shipping a crew was held like furnishing necessary supplies for a voyage. The distinction between preliminary services leading to a maritime contract and such contracts themselves have been affirmed in this country [from the first, and not yet departed from. It furnishes a distinction capable of somewhat easy application. If it be broken down, I do not perceive any other dividing line for excluding from the admiralty many other sorts of claims which have a reference, more or less near or remote, to navigation and commerce. If the broker of a charter-party be admitted, the insurance broker must follow, — the drayman, the expressman, and all others who perform services having reference to a voyage either in contemplation or executed.
In Merchant v. Lulan, upon a similar case, the libel was dismissed on execution (as I find on examination) on February 22, 1879, by Benedict, J., in- the eastern district, and the same decision must ba. made here.
Libel dismissed, with costs.
See Ferris v. The Bark E. D. Jewett, 2 Fed. Rep. 111.