White v. Two Hundred & Ninety-Two Thousand Three Hundred Dollars

E.D. New York

White v. Two Hundred & Ninety-Two Thousand Three Hundred Dollars

19 F. 848, 1883 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. New York

DecidedDecember 28, 1883

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 19 F. 848 (White v. Two Hundred & Ninety-Two Thousand Three Hundred Dollars) 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

White v. Two Hundred & Ninety-Two Thousand Three Hundred Dollars, 19 F. 848, 1883 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204 (E.D.N.Y. 1883).

Pincite

Opinion

Benedict, J.

This case comes before the court upon exception to the libel, upon the ground, among others, that the libel fails to state facts, showing the libelant, B. Cornell White, to have a lien upon the moneys proceeded against. These moneys, as the libel shows, are the proceeds or certain steam-boals, of which vessels the libelant was ship’s husband. The claim sought to be enforced against these moneys consists of various sums paid from time to time by the libelant, while acting in the -capacity of ship’s husband, in satisfaction of certain demands, which were at the time, as the libelant claims, subsisting maritime liens upon the respective vessels. Upon this statement the libelant had no lien upon the vessels, and has none upon the proceeds, not being in his hands. The authorities are clear to the effect that a ship’s husband has no lien upon the ship for sums paid by him in satisfaction of the ship’s bills. The Larch, 2 Curt. C. C. 427; The Sarah J. Weed, 2 Low. 556; The J. C. Williams, 15 Fed. Rep. 558. These cases are decisive of the present case. If authority were wanting, my opinion would still be adverse to the libel-ant. The libelant cannot maintam this action if he could not maintain an action against the vessels themselves, and there are, in my opinion, strong considerations which should forbid a ship’s husband to acquire, as against his principals, a lien upon their vessel for payments which he is employed to make for them, and which he makes for a compensation paid him.

This exception to the libel is therefore well taken, and the libel must be dismissed, with costs.

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

Benedict, J.

This case comes before the court upon exception to the libel, upon the ground, among others, that the libel fails to state facts, showing the libelant, B. Cornell White, to have a lien upon the moneys proceeded against. These moneys, as the libel shows, are the proceeds or certain steam-boals, of which vessels the libelant was ship’s husband. The claim sought to be enforced against these moneys consists of various sums paid from time to time by the libelant, while acting in the -capacity of ship’s husband, in satisfaction of certain demands, which were at the time, as the libelant claims, subsisting maritime liens upon the respective vessels. Upon this statement the libelant had no lien upon the vessels, and has none upon the proceeds, not being in his hands. The authorities are clear to the effect that a ship’s husband has no lien upon the ship for sums paid by him in satisfaction of the ship’s bills. The Larch, 2 Curt. C. C. 427; The Sarah J. Weed, 2 Low. 556; The J. C. Williams, 15 Fed. Rep. 558. These cases are decisive of the present case. If authority were wanting, my opinion would still be adverse to the libel-ant. The libelant cannot maintam this action if he could not maintain an action against the vessels themselves, and there are, in my opinion, strong considerations which should forbid a ship’s husband to acquire, as against his principals, a lien upon their vessel for payments which he is employed to make for them, and which he makes for a compensation paid him.

This exception to the libel is therefore well taken, and the libel must be dismissed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 F. 848, 1883 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-two-hundred-ninety-two-thousand-three-hundred-dollars-nyed-1883.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack