Case Name: BROWN et al. v. GRAY et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1893-06-30
Citations: 24 N.Y.S. 61
Docket Number: 
Parties: BROWN et al. v. GRAY et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 24
Pages: 61–63

Head Matter:
(70 Hun, 261.)
BROWN et al. v. GRAY et al.
(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.
June 30, 1893.)
1. Charter Party—Construction—Vessel Navigated at Owner’s Expense.
Where, by the terms of a charter party, a vessel is to be navigated at the expense of the owners, they will be deemed to be in possession.
2. State Courts—Jurisdiction—Maritime Liens—Enforcement.
Const. U. S. art. 3, § 2, provides that the judicial power of the courts, of the United States shall extend to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. Rev. St. U. S. § 711, provides that “the jurisdiction vested in the courts of the United States in the cases and proceedings hereinafter mentioned shall be exclusive of the cóurts of the several states: * * * (3) Of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases the right of a common-law remedy when the common law is competent to give it.” Held, that the state courts have no jurisdiction of equitable actions to enforce maritime liens.
Appeal from special term, New York county.
Action by John Crosby Brown and others against James Gray,. John Stephens, and Henry Mauson, impleaded with others, to enforce certain maritime liens. From orders directing defendants-to deposit with the Central Trust Company of New York all moneys-collected on account of freight, less certain charges for wharfage,, lighterage, and port charges, defendants appeal.
Reversed.
The United States & Brazil Steamship Company is a corporation organized under the laws of this state, and when the transactions occurred out of which this litigation arises it was a common carrier of freight and passengers between the port of New York and various ports in South America. Among other steamers used in their business were the Kate and Joshua Nicholson, both British vessels. The Kate was owned by the defendant James Gray, and on the 15th of December, 1892, was hired to the corporation for two round trips from ports in the United States north of Cape Hatteras to ports in Brazil or in the Argentine Republic. The Joshua Nicholson was owned by the-defendants Stephens and Mauson, and on the 16th of December, 1892, was hired to the corporation for two round trips from the port of New York to-ports in Brazil or in the Argentine Republic. Each vessel made one round trip from the port of New York, and about the time of the termination of their trips the corporation became insolvent, and a receiver of it was appointed. The owners of the vessels agreed to furnish sufficient officers, seamen, and employes to navigate the steamers. The charterers agreed to pay a sum specified for each calendar month for the time which the steamers were-employed. Both charter parties contained a provision that the owners should have a lien on all cargoes of freight for the amount due them on the contract. In 1892 and 1893 the plaintiffs issued to the corporation certain letters of credit, under which the steamship company became indebted to the plaintiff in large sums of money. When the letters were issued it was agreed that all freight moneys earned and to, be earned by the corporation were “pledged and hypothecated to the plaintiffs as collateral security for the payment” of all moneys advanced under the letters of credit. This action was brought originally against the corporation as the sole defendant, for the purpose of having the sums advanced by the plaintiffs under their letters charged as a lien on the freight moneys earned and to be earned, and to restrain the corporation from collecting those moneys. A temporary injunction was granted restraining the corporation from collecting the moneys due for freight. The Atlantic Trust Company is a trustee for holders of bonds secured by a mortgage, executed by the corporation July 1, 1889, upon its property, as security for the bonds issued pursuant to the mortgage. The trust company claims to have a lien upon the freight moneys, and March 15,1893, it was by an order of the court, on its own petition, brought in as a party defendant in the- action. On the same date an order was made that the steamship company deposit with the Central Trust Company, to the credit of this action, all freight moneys then in its possession, and all which should thereafter be earned’. March 23,1893, upon the motion of the plaintiffs, James Gray, the owner of the Kate, and John Stephens and Henry Mauson, the owners of the Joshua Nicholson, were ordered to be brought in as parties defendant. Pursuant to this order the summons and complaint were amended, and these persons named as defendants in the action. By the amended complaint it is alleged that James Gray was the owner of the Kate, and that Stephens and Mauson were the owners of the Joshua Nicholson, and chartered them to the steamship company. It is also alleged that said owners have or claim to have some interest in the freight moneys earned by those vessels “on the voyages of said steamers last terminated or about to be terminated, by reason of certain unpaid charter hire due or owing to them upon said steamers, and certain moneys advanced by them for disbursements of said steamers.” It is also alleged that the owners, through their agents in the city of New York, are collecting the freight moneys, and threaten to apply it to their own use, and have refused to deliver it to the plaintiffs, though requested so to do. The sums which the steamship company agreed to pay for the use of the vessels have not been paid, and the owners were compelled to pay certain sums for port charges. The owners, through their agents in the city of New York, have collected the freight moneys due at the port of New York, and claim to hold them as security for the amount due under the charters for disbursements in delivering the cargo, for a claim made for coal, and for damages for refusing to load the vessels for the second agreed voyages. The appellants have not been served with process, nor have they appeared in the action except specially for the purpose of moving to vacate the injunction, and for the purpose of this appeal.
Argued before VAJN" BRUNT, P. J., and FOLLETT, J.
Convers & Kirlin, (J. Parker Kirlin, of counsel,) for appellants.
Cary & Whitridge, (Willard Parker Butler, of counsel,) for respondents.

Opinion:
FOLLETT, J.
Under the charter parties the owners of the vessels had liens on the freight moneys for the sums due them for the use of their ships. 4,885 Bags of Linseed, 1 Black, 108; The Bird of Paradise, 5 Wall. 545. By the terms of the charter parties the vessels were to be navigated by officers and crews furnished by the owners, and at their expense, and at the time when the owners enforced their liens upon the freight they had legal possession of the ships. In Clarkson v.. Edes, 4 Cow. 470, it was held, that when by the terms of a charter party a vessel is to be navigated at the expense .of the owners, they must be deemed to be the owners in possession. Whether the owners have a lien on the freight moneys for all the items which they claim is not necessary to be determined, for we are of the opinion that this court has not jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the conflicting claims of these litigants. Section 3 of article 3 of the constitution of the United States provides that the judicial power of the courts of the United States shall extend to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. Pursuant to this provision, section 711 of the Revised Statutes of the United States was passed, which provides:
"The jurisdiction vested in the courts of the United States in the cases and proceedings hereinafter mentioned shall be exclusive of the courts of the several states: Third. Of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases the right of a common-law remedy when the common law is competent to give it."
The same statutory provision is contained in subdivision 8, § 563, Rev. St. U. S. Under this statute it has been repeatedly held that controversies arising out, of maritime contracts must be enforced in the United States courts, unless the remedy sought is one which can be obtained in a common-law court. The Hine v. Trevor, 4 Wall. 555; The Belfast, 7 Wall. 625; Town of Pelham v. The R. F. Woolsey, 3 Fed. Rep. 457. The learned counsel for the respondent cites many cases, and many more might be added, holding that actions for the recovery of damages—common-law actions— for breach of maritime contracts may be maintained in the courts of the several states; but he cites no authority holding that an equitable action, brought to enforce a maritime lien, can be prosecuted in such courts. Of such actions the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction. The case at bar is an equitable action, brought in the first instance to enforce a maritime lien in favor of the plaintiff, and by the amendment to the complaint it is sought to adjudicate as to the existence of the maritime liens claimed by the appellant, and, if found to exist, to determine their amount. This, under the decisions, we think cannot be done. The orders appealed from should be reversed, with $10 costs and printing disbursements, and the motion to vacate the injunctions granted, with $10 costs.