Keating v. The John Shay

E.D. Pennsylvania

Keating v. The John Shay

81 F. 216, 1897 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 14, 1897

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 81 F. 216 (Keating v. The John Shay) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Keating v. The John Shay, 81 F. 216, 1897 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47 (E.D. Pa. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

BUTLER, District Judge.

The lihel and exceptions raise the question, are stevedores employed in the home port of a vessel entitled to a lien? It seems to be settled that they are not. The subject is well discussed and the authorities cited on the one side and the other, in the proctor’s brief annexed, and I therefore incorporate it in this opinion. The contract is maritime; but this fact does not control the question. Contracts for supplies and other necessaries, are maritime; but when furnished in the home port no lien attaches. In the absence of express stipulation, liens attach only where the supplies are furnished, or services rendered, on the credit of the vessel. In the home port they are presumed to be furnished or rendered on the credit of the owners. Liens are not favored, and are, therefore, allowed only where the necessities of the vessel and the interests of commerce render them necessary. No case is found in which a lien for stevedores’ services in the home port, has been allowed, as the libelant’s intelligent proctor, admits. He relies however on expressions found in some cases where the question was not directly involved. The obiter dicta of judges are not of much value; very often they are misleading. The libel must be dismissed.

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

BUTLER, District Judge.

The lihel and exceptions raise the question, are stevedores employed in the home port of a vessel entitled to a lien? It seems to be settled that they are not. The subject is well discussed and the authorities cited on the one side and the other, in the proctor’s brief annexed, and I therefore incorporate it in this opinion. The contract is maritime; but this fact does not control the question. Contracts for supplies and other necessaries, are maritime; but when furnished in the home port no lien attaches. In the absence of express stipulation, liens attach only where the supplies are furnished, or services rendered, on the credit of the vessel. In the home port they are presumed to be furnished or rendered on the credit of the owners. Liens are not favored, and are, therefore, allowed only where the necessities of the vessel and the interests of commerce render them necessary. No case is found in which a lien for stevedores’ services in the home port, has been allowed, as the libelant’s intelligent proctor, admits. He relies however on expressions found in some cases where the question was not directly involved. The obiter dicta of judges are not of much value; very often they are misleading. The libel must be dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 F. 216, 1897 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keating-v-the-john-shay-paed-1897.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack