66

lien for repairs under State statute; so also in The Harrison, 2 Abb. (U. S.) 75, 84, 93, 1 Sawy. 354, 363, 373, F. C. 5,038; The Alida, Abb. Adm. 169, F. C. 199, refusing to enforce lien where it was not asserted within time prescribed by State statute; The Infanta, 1 Abb. Adm. 268, F. C. 7,030, declining to enforce lien not recognized by State law; The Circassian, 1 Ben. 141, F. C. 2,721, as showing distinction between foreign and domestic vessels; The Kate Hinchman, 7 Biss. 239, F. C. 7,621, holding that duly recorded mortgage of yessel is to be preferred to lien for supplies given by State law; The Circassian, 11 Blatchf. 473, 474, 475, F. C. 2,726, construing new twelfth rule of admiralty;" Cole v. The Atlantic, Crabbe, 442, F. C. 2,976, holding that where lien given to mechanic for repairs made in home port, delay of two years in enforcing it will not defeat it, in absence of culpable neglect; The Young Mechanic, 2 Curt. 405, 406, F. C. 18,180, holding such lien not to be divested by death of owner, and representation by administrator of the insolvency of the estate; The Albany, 4 Dill. 442, 443, F. C. 131, refusing to enforce lien for supplies furnished, there being no State statute on the subject; Phillips v. The Thomas Scattergood, Gilp. 9, F. C. 11,106, enforcing lien for wages under State law; Davis v. Brig, Gilp. 478, F. C. 3,643, holding that lien vested under State law cannot be defeated by transfer of vessel to new owner; The Red Wing, 5 McCrary, 123, 14 Fed. 870, holding that where statute prescribes time within which lien must be enforced, equity will recognize such limitation; Wick v. The Samuel Strong, 6 McLean, 590, Newb. 190, F. C. 17,607, granting motion to dismiss libel where lien not recognized by State law; The Harriet, Olcott, 231, F. C. 6,097, enforcing statutory lien of watchman employed on board domestic vessel; The Eliza Ladd, 3 Sawy. 521, F. C. 4,364, enforcing lien for work given by State law; The City of Salem, 7 Sawy. 479, 10 Fed. 845, where statute provided that persons performing labor on vessel at request of contractor, should have lien for wages; The Richard Busteed, 1 Sprague, 442, 446, 447, F. C. 11,764, enforcing provisions of State statute regulating liens given for materials furnished in building ship; The Schooner Marion, 1 Story, 72, F. C. 9,087, refusing to enforce lien under facts identical with those in principal case; Reppert v. Robinson, Taney, 497, F. C. 11,703, enforcing lien under statute where, by law of State, acceptance of promissory note did not extinguish principal debt; Pickell v. Loper, Taney, 502, F. C. 11,119, dismissing libel where supplies were furnished in port where vessel licensed: Hull of a Ship, 2 Ware (Dav.), 201, F. C. 6,859, enforcing statutory mechanics' lien; Macy v. De Wolf, 3 Wood. & M. 203, F. C. 8,933, as showing distinction between foreign and domestic vessels.

Other citing cases affirm and follow the syllabus principle, as follows: Monongahela, etc., Co. v. The Bob Connell, 1 Fed. 219, holding that lien for lockage does not arise where services rendered vessel in home port; The E. A. Barnard, 2 Fed. 721, holding that

maritime lien is to be preferred to such statutory lien; but see The General Burnside, 2 Flipp. 148, 3 Fed. 231, where such liens are held to be entitled to equal rank with liens of foreign materialmea;. Kretzmer v. The William A. Levering, 35 Fed. 784, holding that no lien arises by sale of supplies to cook of vessel; The Manhattan, 46 Fed. 798, entertaining suit to enforce lien for labor in building vessel in home port; The Samuel Marshall, 49 Fed. 756, arguing in favor of application of rule where one of several joint owners resides in town where credit given; Lighters Nos. 27 and 28, 57 Fed. 666, F. C. 15,236, refusing to enforce statutory lien against vessel where credit not given to vessel; so also in The Alvira, 63 Fed. 147, 155, to same effect; The Unadilla, 73 Fed. 351, holding that statutory liens are inferior to maritime liens, and holders are entitled to share only after maritime liens satisfied; The Electron, 74 Fed. 694, refusing to enforce lien for supplies, where credit not given to vessel; Spedden v. Koenig, 78 Fed. 506, 42 U. S. App. 267, holding that managing owner living in town with rest of owners, cannot charge vessel for supplies; The Augusta, 2 Fed. Cas. 210, 212, enforcing statute giving carpenter's lien on vessel for wages; Wickes v. The Circassian, 5 Fed. Cas. 689, under facts similar to those in principal case; Harrison v. The Anna Kimball, 11 Fed. Cas. 646, refusing to enforce lien under State statute allowing half-pilotage, in absence of provision in such statute; Haslett v. The Enterprise, 11 Fed. Cas. 784, where State statute allowed lien for repairs; Hill v. The Golden Gate, 12 Fed. Cas. 161, 164; Jenkins v. The Congress, 13 Fed. Cas. 456, holding lien lost by departure of vessei from port where supplies furnished and statutory lien attached; Ludington v. The Nucleus, 15 Fed. Cas. 1095, refusing to attach lien for labor in absence of State statute; so also in Marsh v. The Minnie, 16 Fed. Cas. 811; Schuchardt v. The Angelique, 21 Fed. Cas. 745, enforcing lien given by State statute, but refusing to give it priority claimed for it by such statute; Udell v. The Ohio, 24 Fed. Cas. 497, holding that lien will not attach under State law for materials furnished to builder after contract price paid to builder in full; Whittaker v. The J. A. Travis, 29 Fed. Cas. 1116, 1117, enforcing statutory lien for supplies furnished. Cited also in Steamboat Belfast v. Boon, 41 Ala. 63, in support of the validity of an act giving shipper a lien for loss of goods; Buddington v. Stewart, 14 Conn. 409, applying principle in State court and refusing to enforce lien for repairs made in home port, in absence of statute; Rees v. The General Terry, 3 Dak. Ter. 167, 13 N. W. 537, refusing to enforce mechanic's lien; Williamson v. Hogan, 46 Ill. 518, refusing to enforce lien for supplies; Tug Montauk v. Walker, 47 Ill. 337, on point that State statute giving lien for supplies and right to enforce it in State court, is valid if not in conflict with Federal jurisdiction; so also in Dorr v. Waldron, 62 Ill. 228, 14 Am. Rep. 91; Bauduc's Syndics v. Nicholson, 4 La. 85, applying principle in denying jurisdiction of United States court to 57

interfere with execution of decree of court in action to enforce statutory lien against domestic vessel; Urann v. Fletcher, 1 Gray, . 128, where no lien given by statute for supplies furnished in domestic port; so also in Dever v. The Hope, 42 Miss. 723. 2 Am. Rep. 648, 649; Brookman v. Hamill, 43 N. Y. 560, 3 Am. Rep. 736, asserting right of State to provide for enforcement of such liens according to common-law rules; Waggoner v. St. John, 10 Heisk. 521, asserting power of State legislatures to create lien not recognized by maritime law; Price v. Frankel, 1 Wash. Ter. 39, holding that where State statute provides that lien shall not attach for supplies furnished in home port, until action commenced, territorial Admiralty Court has no jurisdiction to entertain suit. See also valuable note, 62 Am. Dec. 241, 243, on general subject.

Cited approvingly in general discussion, but without application of the rule, in the following cases: Dissenting opinion, Waring v. Clarke, 5 How. 491, 12 L. 250; The Lottawanna, 20 Wall. 217, 219, 22 L. 262; In re Surplus, etc., of The Ship Edith, 11 Blatchf. 460, 461, 462, F. C. 4,283; The Hilarity, Blatchf. & H. 92, F. C. 6,480; Hatton v. The Melita, 3 Hughes, 499, F. C. 6,218; The Robert Fulton. 1 Paine, 626, F. C. 11,890; Davis v. Child, 2 Ware (Dav.), 74, F. C. 3,628; The Dolphin, 1 Flipp. 584, F. C. 3,973; In re Long Island, etc., Co., 5 Fed. 609; The Samuel Marshall, 54 Fed. 399, 401, 6 U. S. App. 389; Davidson v. Baldwin, 79 Fed. 97,.47 U. S. App. 589; Moir v. Dubuque, 17 Fed. Cas. 570, 571; Zollinger v. The Emma, 30 Fed. Cas. 940; Bowen v. Peters, 71 Me. 465; Gould v. Jacobson, 58 Mich. 291, 25 N. W. 196.

Criticised in dissenting opinion, Ward v. Peck, 18 How. 271, 15 L. 385. Explained and distinguished in Maguire v. Card, 21 How. 251, 16 L. 118, denying jurisdiction of admiralty to enforce statutory liens for contracts of affreightment to be performed upon rivers wholly within a State, a prior rule of court having disclaimed jurisdiction to enforce liens given by State law. Criticised in dissenting opinion, The Lotta wanna, 21 Wall. 592, 22 L. 667, arguing in favor of jurisdiction of admiralty to enforce lien, although requirements of State statute not strictly observed; The Kate Tremaine, 5 Ben. 67, F. C. 7,622, holding that contract for wharfage creates a maritime lien, enforceable in absence of State statute. Limited in The John Richards, 1 Biss. 108, F. C. 7,361, holding that general maritime lien is superior to lien recognized by State statute, and judgment and sale under latter cannot displace former. So also in The N. W. Thomas, 1 Biss. 214, 215, F. C. 10,386. Modified in Schultz v. Bosman, 5 Hughes, 101, F. C. 12,488, ruling otherwise, where port where supplies furnished is the home port, but owner resides at distance, and need for supplies is urgent. Distinguished in The George T. Kemp, 2 Low. 481, F. C. 5,341, where vessel was. really owned by foreigner, and sailed under foreign flag, and lien was enforced for supplies furnished in port where equitable owner resided; The H. E. Willard, 52 Fed. 389, denying jurisdiction to

Criti

enforce statutory lien which is not maritime in its nature. cised in Jackson v. The Kinnie, 13 Fed. Cas. 219, holding that statutes providing for liens in home port, in effect attempt to confer jurisdiction upon Admiralty Courts, and are void. Criticised in The Josephine, 39 N. Y. 24, 26, 27, holding void an act of legislature creating statutory lien enforceable in Admiralty Courts.

Maritime lien- Shipwright, making repairs in domestic port, has lien upon vessel in absence of statute, so long as she remains in his possession, but if he parts with possession or works on vessel without having possession, no lien exists, p. 443.

Cited and principle applied in Leland v. The Medora, 2 Wood. & M. 97, F. C. 8,237, holding that materialman waives lien by unreasonable delay in enforcing it; Jenkins v. Congress, 13 Fed. Cas. 456, holding that departure from port where supplies furnished, destroys lien given by State statute; Case v. Woolley, 6 Dana, 22, 23, 27, 32 Am. Dec. 59, 60, 63, where shipwright surrendered possession of vessel after building; Herrington v. The Chisholm, 8 Jones (N. C.), 8, holding that where such liens are regulated by statute, they are lost if not enforced as provided by statute.

Miscellaneous citations.- Explained in Waring v. Clarke, 5 How. 459, 12 L. 235, discussing general subject and holding that admiralty jurisdiction cannot, as intimated in principal case, be determined by common-law rules; so also in The Stephen Allen, Bl. & H. 177, F. C. 13,361. Cited in Packard v. Ship Louisa, 2 Wood. & M. 53, F. C. 10,652, but application doubtful; so also in Sheafe v. Kimball, 21 Fed. Cas. 1209; Cox v. Murray, Abb. Adm. 341, F. C. 3,304, on point that in admiralty remedy is to be sought in rem against vessel or in personam against owner.

4 Wheat. 444-452, 4 L. 611, McIVER'S LESSEE v. WALKER. Decision in 9 Cr. 173-179, reaffirmed upon all the points then decided. See note to that case.

Wells v. Jackson, etc., Co., 47 N. H. 260, 90 Am. Dec. 589, and note, 90 Am. Dec. 592, cite both decisions on the point that where nothing exists to control calls for courses and distances, land must be bounded by courses and distances according to the magnetic meridian. The later decision is cited on this point in Bruckner's Lessee v. Lawrence, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 29, where authorities are collected and discussed.

On the point that monuments designated in a patent will control courses and distances, both decisions are cited in Higley v. Bidwell, 9 Conn. 452, and distinguished in Stanley v. Stanley, 2 N. H. 372. The following cases cite only the later decision upon this point: Sayers v. City of Lyons, 10 Iowa, 255, where monument called for was "low-water mark" on navigable stream and made longer line than that called for by distance: Wendell v. People, 8 Wend. 190, 22 Am. Dec. 639, applying rule to similar state of facts. The rule

is also cited, arguendo, in Opdyke v. Stephens, 28 N. J. L. 86, and Browning v. Atkinson, 37 Tex. 660.

The following cases cite both decisions on the point that if a patent refer to a plat annexed, resort may be had to such plat to correct repugnancies in patent: Brown v. Clements, 3 How. 672, 11 L. 778; United States v. Texas, 162 U. S. 37, 40 L. 879, 16 S. Ct. 733; Knowles v. Nichols, 2 Curt. 574, F. C. 7,897; Langdon v. New York, 93 N. Y. 148; Wolfe v. Scarborough, 2 Ohio St. 368; Waterman v. Andrews, 14 R. I. 598. The principle is applied in the following additional cases, citing simply this later decision: Noonan v. Lee, 2 Black, 504, 17 L. 280, where land was described as "southeast quarter" of certain section; Trapier v. Wilson, 2 McCord (S. C.), 197, holding that where land is described as being an island" grant includes the whole island as designated by surveyor's plat. The principal case is also cited approvingly, but without particular application to the point at issue, in McManus v. Carmichael, 3 Iowa, 38.

4 Wheat. 453-465, 4 L. 613, ORR v. HODGSON.

66

Alien.- The sixth article of the treaty of peace of 1783 protected from forfeiture, by reason of alienage, lands then held by British subjects, p. 462.

This holding has been cited and applied in Society, etc. v. New Haven, 8 Wheat. 489, 5 L. 668, extending protection to corporations created by British crown; Hughes v. Edwards, 9 Wheat. 496, 6 L. 144, entertaining bill by alien mortgagee to have land sold which was conveyed to him as security for debt; Hauenstein v. Lynham, 100 U. S. 489, 25 L. 630, applying principle in construing similar treaty with Swiss Confederation; Hanrick v. Patrick, 119 U. S. 165, 30 L. 403, 7 S. Ct. 152, construing State statute confirming titles of British subjects; In re Parrott, 6 Sawy. 371, 1 Fed. 503, as instance where rights of aliens were held to be protected against State laws, holding void, provision in State Constitution prohibiting employment of Chinese, as repugnant to existing treaty; People v. Gerke, 5 Cal. 382, construing similar treaty with Prussia; Forbes v. Scannell, 13 Cal. 283, as instance of exercise of treaty-making power, in construing treaty regulating right to sue in consular courts in China. Cited, arguendo, in the following cases: Pollard v. Kibbe, 14 Pet. 412, 10 L. 519; Piper v. Richardson, 9 Met. 157.

Limited in Crane v. Reeder, 21 Mich. 63, 66, 68, 73, 4 Am. Rep. 436, 438, 439, 441, construing later treaty, and holding rule to apply only to valid titles existing at time treaty made.

Alien. The ninth article of the treaty of 1794, under the word "heirs," did not include any other than British subjects or American citizens at time of descent cast, p. 464.

Cited and applied in Brown v. Sprague, 5 Den. 549, holding that