The General Smith

17 U.S. 438
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedFebruary 15, 1819
StatusPublished
Cited by28 cases

This text of 17 U.S. 438 (The General Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
The General Smith, 17 U.S. 438 (1819).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Story,

delivered the opinion of the Court.'

No doubt is entertained by this Court, that “the Admiralty rightfully possesses a general jurisdiction in Cases Of material men; and if this had been a sui tin personam, there would not have been any hesitation in sustaining the jurisdiction' of the District Court. Where, however, the proceeding is in rent to enforce a specific lien, it is incumbent upon those who seek the aid of the Court, to establish the existence of such lien in the particular case. Where repairs have been made, or necessaries have been furnished to a foreign ship, or to a ship in a- port of the State to which she does not belong, the general maritime law, following the civil law, gives the party a lien on the ship itself for his security; and he may well maintain a suit in rem in the Admiralty to enforce his right. But in respect to repairs and necessaries in the port or State to which the ship belongs, the'case is governed altogether by the municipal law Of that State; and no lien is implied, unless it is recognised by that law. Now, it has been long settled, whether originally upon the soundest principles it is now toó. late to inquire, that by the common law, which is the law of Maryland, material men and mechanics furnishing repairs to a domestic ship, have no particular lien upon the ship itself for the recovery of their demands. A shipwright, indeed, who has taken a ship into his own possession to repair it, is not bound to part with the possession until he is paid for. the repairs, any more than any other artificer.. But if he has once parted with the posses[444]*444sion, or has worked upon it without taking possession, he is not deemed a privileged creditor, haying any claim upon the ship itself.

Without, therefore, entering into a discussion,of the particular circumstances of this case, we are of. opinion, that here there was not, by the principies of law, any lien upon the ship; and, consequently, the decree of the Circuit Court must be reversed.

Decree reversed.

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

Related

Leopard Marine & Trading, Ltd. v. Easy St. Ltd.
896 F.3d 174 (Second Circuit, 2018)
Triton Marine Fuels Ltd. v. M/V Pacific Chukotka
575 F.3d 409 (Fourth Circuit, 2009)
Trans-Tec Asia v. M/V HARMONY CONTAINER
518 F.3d 1120 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)
Ventura Packers, Inc. v. F/V Jeanine Kathleen
305 F.3d 913 (Ninth Circuit, 2002)
Umpqua Marine Ways, Inc. v. The United States
925 F.2d 409 (Federal Circuit, 1991)
Gulf Oil Trading Company v. M/V Caribe Mar
757 F.2d 743 (Fifth Circuit, 1985)
Gulf Oil Trading Co. v. M/V Caribe Mar
757 F.2d 743 (Fifth Circuit, 1985)
Dravo Corp. v. Maxin
545 F.2d 374 (Third Circuit, 1976)
Dravo Corporation v. Maxin
545 F.2d 374 (Third Circuit, 1976)
Pierside Terminal Operators, Inc. v. M/V FLORIDIAN
374 F. Supp. 27 (E.D. Virginia, 1974)
Santiago v. Sea-Land Service, Inc.
366 F. Supp. 1309 (D. Puerto Rico, 1973)
In Re Admiralty Lines, Ltd.
280 F. Supp. 601 (E.D. Louisiana, 1968)
Alcoa Steamship Company v. Charles Ferran & Company
242 F. Supp. 962 (E.D. Louisiana, 1965)
United States v. Lucie Schulte
343 F.2d 897 (Second Circuit, 1965)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
17 U.S. 438, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-general-smith-scotus-1819.