The Lottawanna
88 U.S. 558, 22 L. Ed. 654, 21 Wall. 558 (1875)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the general maritime law of the United States, a lien for necessary supplies, repairs, or materials furnished to a vessel in its home port does not arise. However, individual states may enact laws creating such liens, which can then be enforced by federal courts exercising their admiralty jurisdiction.
Facts:
- A steamer was located in its home port of New Orleans, Louisiana.
- The appellees, a group of material-men, furnished necessary supplies and repairs to the steamer on credit while it was in its home port.
- The appellants held a mortgage on the same steamer to secure a debt owed by the vessel's owner.
- The owner of the steamer failed to pay both the material-men for their supplies and the appellants on the mortgage.
- The appellees did not record their claim for supplies as a privilege or lien in the parish where the property was situated, as required by the Louisiana state constitution and statutes.
Procedural Posture:
- The vessel was seized and sold in the U.S. District Court to pay seamen's wages, creating a fund in the court's registry.
- The appellants (mortgagees) and the appellees (material-men) both intervened by filing libels against the surplus proceeds of the sale.
- The District Court awarded the surplus funds to the appellants (mortgagees).
- The appellees (material-men) appealed this decision to the U.S. Circuit Court.
- The Circuit Court reversed the decree of the District Court, ruling in favor of the appellees (material-men).
- The appellants (mortgagees) then appealed the Circuit Court's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the general maritime law of the United States provide a lien for necessary supplies and repairs furnished to a vessel in its home port, enforceable in federal admiralty courts?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Bradley
No. The general maritime law of the United States does not grant a lien for necessary supplies furnished to a vessel in its home port. The law of a country's maritime affairs is only that which it has adopted through its own laws and usages, not a universal code with its own inherent force. This Court reaffirms its long-standing precedent from The General Smith, which held that no such lien exists under federal maritime law. While Congress has the power to create a uniform rule, and states have the authority to create these liens by statute, the Court is bound to declare the law as it currently stands. Because the maritime law of the United States does not provide for a home port lien, and the appellees failed to perfect their lien under Louisiana state law by recording it, their claim is subordinate to that of the mortgagees.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Clifford
Yes. A maritime lien should arise for necessary repairs and supplies furnished in a vessel's home port, just as it does in a foreign port. The distinction between home and foreign ports established in The General Smith is an illogical and unjust rule founded in error that the Court should now correct. The true sources of American admiralty law are the broader principles of maritime law and the practices of colonial admiralty courts, both of which recognized liens for domestic supplies. A contract for necessaries is a maritime contract regardless of location, and sound policy dictates that if credit is given to the ship, a lien should follow. Relying on a patchwork of conflicting state lien laws defeats the constitutional goal of a uniform maritime law.
Analysis:
This decision firmly entrenches the 'home port lien doctrine' from The General Smith, reinforcing the principle of stare decisis in commercial law where property rights, such as mortgages, rely on stable legal rules. It clarifies that U.S. maritime law is a distinct body of federal law derived from American usages and court decisions, not an automatic adoption of international maritime codes. By affirming that states can create liens enforceable in federal admiralty courts, the case solidified a complex, dual system of federal and state-created maritime liens that prompted Congress to later pass the Federal Maritime Lien Act to establish a uniform national standard.
