The Caroline
District Court, D. Massachusetts
In admiralty. Three libels were brought against tbe brig Caroline and ber freight, one for wages and two for supplies and materials, and the value of tlie vessel was shown to be insufficient.
Read the full summary
In admiralty. Three libels were brought against tbe brig Caroline and ber freight, one for wages and two for supplies and materials, and the value of tlie vessel was shown to be insufficient. The Boston Gas Light Company, owners and consignees of the cargo, being required to show cause, under the 3Sth admiralty rule of the supreme court, why the freight should not be brought in to answer the exigency of the suit, appeared under protest, and showed that they had been summoned as trustees of the ship-owner, in the superior court of the commonwealth before the filing of the libels. C. T.…
1Opinion of the Court
LOWELL, District Judge.
The decision in Taylor v. Carryl [supra], as explained in Freeman v. Howe [supra], and in Buck v. Colbath, 8 Wall. [70 U. S.] 334, does not operate to defeat the paramount maritime liens, but only to delay their enforcement, because the sheriff can sell only the right of the ship-owner, subject to those liens; the practical effect of which I find to be that the sheriff usually waives his possession when libels are filed for maritime liens, because his title becomes of little or no market value. So. that we have come back pretty much to the practice which prevailed…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Lewis v. HancockMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1814
3Cited by7 opinions
- Moran v. SturgesSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Eddy v. O'HaraMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1882
- United States v. Certain Subfreights Due Steamship NeponsetDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1924
- Ross v. BourneDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1883
- The BethuliaDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1911
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.