White's Bank v. Smith

74 U.S. 646, 19 L. Ed. 211, 7 Wall. 646, 1868 U.S. LEXIS 1047
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMarch 29, 1869
StatusPublished
Cited by45 cases

This text of 74 U.S. 646 (White's Bank v. 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
White's Bank v. Smith, 74 U.S. 646, 19 L. Ed. 211, 7 Wall. 646, 1868 U.S. LEXIS 1047 (1869).

Opinion

Mr. Justice NELSON

delivered the opinion of the court,

The act of Congress, July 29, 1850, on this subject, of the presentíase, is as follows:

“ That no bill of sale, mortgage, hypothecation, or conveyance of any vessel, or part of any vessel of the United States, shall be valid against any person other than the grantor or mortgagor, his heirs and devisees, and persons having actual notice thereof, unless such bill of sale, mortgage, hypothecation, or conveyance, be recorded in-the office of the collector of customs, where such vessel is registered or enrolled.”

The next section provides for recording these bills of sale, &c., and also certificates of discharge and cancellation in a proper book. No provision was made for any authentication of these instruments preparatory to their being recorded. They were received by the collector from the parties delivering them, and were recorded, with no proof of their verity, except from the execution of the same, as appeared on their face; and this, both as it respects the -bills of sale, mortgages, *651 &e., and the discharge and cancellation of the same. And the law thus stood for some fifteen years. On .March 3,1865, it was enacted that “ no bill of sale, mortgage, hypothecation, conveyance, or discharge of mortgage, or other incumbrance of any vessel, shall be recorded, unless th'e same is duly acknowledged before a notary public, or other officer authorized to take acknowledgment of deeds.”

Previous to this act of 1850, providing for the recording of bills of sale, mortgages, &c., of vessels, they were required to be filed, by the laws of many of the States, in the clerk’s office, or some place of public deposit in the town or city where the vendor or mortgagor resided, in order to protect the interest of the vendee or mortgagee against subsequent bond fide purchasers or mortgagees. And this practice continued in many places after the passage of the act of 1850, for abundant caution, on account of a doubt as to the effect that would or might be given to it as a recording act, from the very imperfect provisions of the law. There can be no-doubt, however, but that the system of recording these instruments in the collector’s office, at the home port of the vessel, furnishes a much readier opportunity to persons dealing in this species of property', to obtain a knowledge of the condition of the title, than by the former mode under the State law. We say the home port, because it is quite apparent'from the language of the act, “be recorded in the office of the collector of customs, where such vessel is registered or enrolled,” means the permanent registry or enrolment, which is at the port, “at or nearest to which the owner, if there be but one, or if more than one, the husband or acting and managing .owner of said' ship or vessel usually resides. And the name of the said ship or vessel, and the port to which she shall so belong, shall be painted on her stern, on a black ground, in white letters, of not less than three inches in length,” and, if found without such name and the name of the port, the owner is subject to a penalty of fifty dollars. *

*652 The same aGt provides for'a temporary registry,, when the owner acquires her in a different district from that in which he resides;, but this is to enable him to bring the vessel within the home district or port, whepe shé can obtain her permanent registry. The character of this temporary registry is expressed on the face of it,'and is delivered up to'the .collector on the issuing of the permanent registry, whose duty it is to return it to the collector that granted it. *

So'a registered ■ vessel may be enrolled, or an enrolled vessel registered; on the master .giving up to the collector the registry or enrolment, as the casé may be; and if such vessel shall be in any other district than the one to which óhe belongs, the. collector of such district, upqn the master taking an oath that, according to his best knowledge and belief, the property remains as expressed in a. registry or enrolment proposed to be given up, and on giving the bond required, shall'make the exchanges above mentioned; but-the collector to whom the registry or enrolment is given, up, shall transmit the same to the Register of the Treasury, and the1 registry or enrolment granted in lieu thereof, shall, within ten days after the .arrival of such vessel within' the district to which she belongs, be delivered to the collector of said district, and be by him cancelled.

This exchange,of registry or enrolment may occur in any' part of a voyage or voyages, and the temporary registry of enrolment continues till the Vessel, in the regular course of her employment, arrives -at the port to which she belongs, where she may again obtain a fenewal of her permanent doeufnentary title. As we have said, we think it apparent that the collector’s office',in the district in which this temporary registry or enrolment is made, is not the office contemplated by the act o;f I860. The temporary papers are-made 'in the office where the vessel happens to be at the time of ■ the sale or exchange of the documentary title, and continues . only till her arrival at the port to which, she belongs. Her name, and the name of her home port, remains painted on *653 her stern, notwithstanding -this temporary document, ■ and 'satisfies the-requirement of the act in that respect, and Both continue until a new lióme port is acquired by a change of ownership, requiring a permanent registry or enrolment on account of the different' residence of the owners, when the name of that port is substituted. And, confining the record to the hpme port, there is great propriety and convenience in requiring bills of sale, mortgages, &c., of the whole, or parts of a vessel, to be made matters of record in this office, as' in the registries there are the names of all the owners under oath, together with their residencies; and since the act of 1850,-containing also the part or proportion of such vessel belonging to each owner (§ 5). And in this same section it is provided that, “ in all bills of sale of vessel's registered or enrolled, shall- be set forth the part of the vessel owned by each -person selling, and the part conveyed to each’ person ■ purchasing.” And in this connection we may also mention, that in case.of the sale of a vessel, which can only be to a-, citizen or citizens of the-United States, and a new permaj- , nent registry becomes necessary, the former certificate of registry must be delivered to the collector to whom application is'made for the new registry,’ to be transmitted by him to the Kegister of the Treasurydo be cancelled; and in every such sale'or transfer of á vessel, there shall be some -instrument-in writing in the natpre of a bill of sale, which shall recite at length the certificate of the former registry, otherwise the ship or vessel shall be incapable of being registered anew. *

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

Related

Mullane v. Chambers
333 F.3d 322 (First Circuit, 2003)
McCorkle v. First Pennsylvania Banking & Trust Co.
321 F. Supp. 149 (D. Maryland, 1970)
In re Witt
118 F. Supp. 855 (E.D. New York, 1954)
Blalock v. Brown
51 S.E.2d 610 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1949)
Atlas Imperial Diesel Engine Co. v. Criscuolo
89 P.2d 674 (California Court of Appeal, 1939)
New Dells Lumber Co. v. Pfiffner
258 N.W. 375 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1935)
The Thomas Barlum
68 F.2d 946 (Second Circuit, 1934)
North River Coal & Wharf Co. v. McWilliams Bros.
28 F.2d 513 (S.D. New York, 1928)
Stewart & Co. v. Rivara
274 U.S. 614 (Supreme Court, 1927)
Rivara v. James Stewart & Co.
149 N.E. 851 (New York Court of Appeals, 1925)
The Underwriter
3 F.2d 483 (E.D. New York, 1925)
The Susana
2 F.2d 410 (Fourth Circuit, 1924)
The Lincoln Land
295 F. 358 (D. Massachusetts, 1923)
The Oconee
280 F. 927 (E.D. Virginia, 1922)
Ellis v. Rickett
177 A.D. 411 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1917)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
74 U.S. 646, 19 L. Ed. 211, 7 Wall. 646, 1868 U.S. LEXIS 1047, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whites-bank-v-smith-scotus-1869.