Court Opinion

ID: 9418561
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:32:17.182815+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:05.942420
License: Public Domain

The separate opinion of
Mr. Justice McReynolds.
The repairs Tor which petitioner claims a lien were made at the vessel’s home port, and there is nothing whatever to show any effort to bind her for their payment by special agreement. Under such circumstances the general maritime law gives no lien. If the repair company acquired one it arose from the provisions of the Act of 1920, and not otherwise. While Subsection P, § 30 of that Act declares generally that any person furnishing repairs shall have a lien on the vessel without allegation or proof that credit was extended to her, Subsection R of the same section.expressly provides that “nothing in this section. shall be construed to confer a lien when the furnisher knew, or by exercise of reasonable diligence could have ascertained,. that because of the terms of a charter party, agreement for sale of the vessel, or for any 'other reason, the person ordering the repairs, supplies, or other necessaries was ..without authority, to bind the vessel, therefor.”
When the petitioner furnished the repairs ai the home port there was on the public record in the Collector’s .office at that same port a duly-authenticated bill of sale and a purchase' money mortgage (a copy of the latter was also on board), which disclosed an express agreement by the owner “ not to suffer nor permit to be continued any' Jién, encumbrance or charge which has or might have pri*557ority over this mortgage of the vessel.” The petitioner had easy access to these instruments and, by exercising slight diligence, might have ascertained their contents. They. deprived the owner of both right' and authority,, within the true intent of the statute, to create the lien now claimed by the repair company. The purpose of this enactment was to protect honest furnishers who exercise diligence, and not to offer a wide-opened door for crooked transactions.
The trial judge held that under .the circumstances the petitioner acquired no. lien. I agree with him, and even venture to think that the argument in support of his conclusion cannot be vaporized by mere negation.