Jones v. The Carrie

E.D. New York

Jones v. The Carrie

46 F. 796, 1891 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82

DecidedJuly 1, 1891

StatusPublished

This text of 46 F. 796 (Jones v. The Carrie) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jones v. The Carrie, 46 F. 796, 1891 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82 (E.D.N.Y. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Benedict, J.

This is an action to enforce a lien for a material-man. It is defended by one Buckley, who claims an interest in the lighter by reason of an unpaid' mortgage held by him. Buckley has set up the defense of laches, and transfer ot the vessel to one Costigan since the incurring of Jones’ lien. No other defense is set up. The owner of the lighter interposes no' defense: So far as concerns the transfer to Costigan, [797]*797it is sufficient to say that the evidence does not show it to be bona fide, nor could it in any event avail Buckley. As to Buckley, his interest in the vessel is by way of a mortgage that attached to the lighter long prior to the claim of Jones. The case, therefore, is the same as if a prior owner of the vessel were defending upon the ground of laches. In such a case a lien will not be held lost by laches simply by reason of a delay of between two and three years in enforcing it. A decree must be entered for the libelant, with costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Benedict, J.

This is an action to enforce a lien for a material-man. It is defended by one Buckley, who claims an interest in the lighter by reason of an unpaid' mortgage held by him. Buckley has set up the defense of laches, and transfer ot the vessel to one Costigan since the incurring of Jones’ lien. No other defense is set up. The owner of the lighter interposes no' defense: So far as concerns the transfer to Costigan, [797]*797it is sufficient to say that the evidence does not show it to be bona fide, nor could it in any event avail Buckley. As to Buckley, his interest in the vessel is by way of a mortgage that attached to the lighter long prior to the claim of Jones. The case, therefore, is the same as if a prior owner of the vessel were defending upon the ground of laches. In such a case a lien will not be held lost by laches simply by reason of a delay of between two and three years in enforcing it. A decree must be entered for the libelant, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 F. 796, 1891 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-the-carrie-nyed-1891.