The William Leishear
21 F.2d 862, 1927 A.M.C. 1770, 1927 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1488 (1927)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Maritime liens are ranked in a specific order of priority based on their class, not necessarily their date of creation. Generally, seamen's wage liens have first priority, followed by salvage liens, and then liens for repairs, supplies, and other necessaries.
Facts:
- In July 1926, the schooner William Leishear ran aground in a tributary of the Chesapeake Bay following a storm.
- Pursuant to a contract, a salvor dug a channel to float the vessel and deliver it to a shipyard for repairs.
- Between September 1 and November 20, 1926, a shipbuilding company performed extensive repairs and furnished materials to the vessel.
- During October and November 1926, five sailors with contracts to serve as the vessel's crew for the upcoming season performed various tasks aboard the schooner while it was undergoing repairs, though the vessel never actually sailed.
- Around October 1, 1926, a claimant transported the vessel's sails via an overland route to the shipyard.
- From November 20, 1926, the schooner was docked at a wharf, incurring daily charges.
- After January 19, 1927, a watchman was hired to guard the vessel.
Procedural Posture:
- Various parties filed libels (lawsuits in admiralty) in federal district court against the schooner William Leishear to recover debts.
- As a result of the libels, the court ordered the vessel to be sold under admiralty process.
- The net proceeds from the sale, amounting to $1,011.17, were deposited into the registry of the court.
- The court then began a proceeding to determine the respective rights and priorities of the various claimants (libelants) to this limited fund.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
When multiple maritime liens are asserted against the proceeds from the sale of a vessel which are insufficient to satisfy all claims, in what order of priority should the claims be paid?
Opinions:
Majority - Coleman, District Judge.
The claims should be paid according to a fixed hierarchy of maritime liens, not chronologically. The court establishes a clear ranking of the claims, affirming that certain classes of liens have priority over others regardless of when they attached. First, the wage claims of the five seamen are given top priority, as admiralty law considers seamen to be 'wards of the admiralty' and their claims are specially favored. Second, the salvage claim for floating the vessel is ranked next, as the law encourages the saving of maritime property; the court, however, reduced the contracted amount to a more reasonable sum. Third, the claims for repairs, materials, and wharfage (up until the vessel was withdrawn from navigation) are ranked equally, subordinate to wages and salvage. The court disallowed claims for transporting sails overland and for a watchman's services after the vessel was seized, ruling they were not maritime services and thus did not create a maritime lien.
Analysis:
This case provides a clear and practical synthesis of the often-confusing rules governing the priority of maritime liens. By applying a categorical hierarchy over the traditional 'last in time, first in right' rule, the court reinforces the policy priorities of admiralty law. The decision emphasizes that the law's primary concerns are protecting the wages of seamen and encouraging salvage operations, placing these ahead of ordinary commercial liens for supplies and repairs. This ruling serves as an important precedent for lower courts in organizing competing claims against a vessel when the proceeds of its sale are insufficient to cover all debts.
