The Thomas Barlum the John Barlum Detroit Trust Co v. Barlum Co

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Citation293 U.S. 21,55 S.Ct. 31,79 L.Ed. 176
Docket NumberNos. 13 and 14,s. 13 and 14
PartiesTHE THOMAS BARLUM. THE JOHN J. BARLUM. DETROIT TRUST CO. v. BARLUM S. S. CO
Decision Date05 November 1934

[Syllabus from pages 21-22 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Ray M. Stanley, of Buffalo, N.Y., and Ferris D. Stone, of Detroit, Mich., for petitioner.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 22-25 intentionally omitted] Messrs. George E. Brand, of Detroit, Mich., and Thomas C. Burke, of Buffalo, N.Y., for respondents.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 25-30 intentionally omitted] Mr. Chief Justice HUGHES delivered the opinion of the Court.

These are suits in admiralty to foreclose two mortgages given by the Barlum Steamship Company upon the vessels Thomas Barlum and John J. Barlum, respectively. The mortgages purported to be preferred mortgages under the Ship Mortgage Act 1920. 41 Stat. 1000—1006, 46 U.S.C. c. 25, §§ 911—984 (46 USCA §§ 911—984). The mortgagor, appearing as claimant, contended that the admiralty was without jurisdiction. The District Court overruled that contention and, finding that all the requirements of that Act had been met, entered decrees of foreclosure and sale. 56 F.(2d) 455; 2 F.Supp. 733. In the case of the John J. Barlum the decree provided for the recovery by certain seamen, intervening libelants, of amounts due for wages, as preferred maritime liens. The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decrees, holding that the suits should have been dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. 68 F.(2d) 946. This Court granted certiorari. 292 U.S. 619, 54 S.Ct. 717, 78 L.Ed. 1476.

The mortgagor, at the time the mortgages were executed, was a close corporation, about four-fifths of its shares being owned by John J. Barlum, who was also interested in several nonmaritime enterprises. The mortgage, in No. 13, on the Thomas Barlum was executed in March, 1929, to petitioner, as trustee, to secure $200,000 of bonds which were purchased by petitioner with a definite understanding as to the application of the proceeds. Approximately $50,000 were to meet obligations secured by a prior mortgage upon the same vessel; about $100,000 were to take up loans of John J. Barlum and Thomas Barlum & Sons, a concern which was engaged in a nonmaritime enterprise; and the remainder, about $42,000, were to provide for repairs and for refitting the vessels Thomas Barlum and John J. Barlum. The mort- gage was executed while the Thomas Barlum was laid up.

The mortgage, in No. 14, on the John J. Barlum was executed in December, 1927, to petitioner, as trustee, to secure an issue of $200,000 of bonds purchased by petitioner with the understanding that, of the proceeds, petitioner was to retain about $82,000 to cover principal and interest on bonds of John J. Barlum secured by a mortgage on real estate, and about $10,000 to be applied on one of his notes. Most of the remaining proceeds, which were paid over to the mortgagor, was used to take up loans in connection with nonmaritime enterprises, only a small part being devoted to payments relating to the operation of the vessels.

In both instances, the bonds secured by the mortgages were negotiable bonds and were purchased by petitioner for sale to the general public and were largely so sold.

There is no question as to the validity of the mortgages or of the bonds which they secure or as to the default in payment. The question is solely one of jurisdiction in admiralty of the foreclosure suits. Respondent contends that the mortgages 'were so devoid of connection with maritime purposes' that the provision of the Ship Mortgage Act conferring jurisdiction in admiralty 'either does not, or cannot constitutionally, apply.'

The Circuit Court of Appeals was divided in opinion. The majority of the judges, without passing on the extent of congressional authority, thought that it was sufficient to point out that the mortgagor and mortgagee knew, before the mortgages were made, that the moneys advanced 'were intended for and actually were used for non-maritime purposes,' and they concluded that the provisions of the Ship Mortgage Act did not extend to such a case. The minority view, supporting the decision of the District Court, was that the Congress intended to encourage the investment of capital in ships; that it might well be that this object could best be promoted by allowing vessels 'to be hypothecated as readily and with the same effect as other personal property'; that a mortgage on a ship would be 'a most undesirable security' if purchasers of bonds so secured must at their peril ascertain how moneys advanced upon the mortgage are to be spent; and that Congress had constitutional authority to give to a valid mortgage a preferred status, and to provide for the enforcement of the lien in admiralty, by virtue of its control over ships as essentially marine instrumentalities, a control which includes the promotion of their development and the regulation of their use.

Prior to the enactment of the Ship Mortgage Act 1920, the admiralty had no jurisdiction of a suit to foreclose a mortgage on a ship. Bogart v. The Steamboat John Jay, 17 How. 399, 402, 15 L.Ed. 95; Schuchardt v. Babbidge (Ship Angelique), 19 How. 239, 241, 15 L.Ed. 625; People's Ferry Co. v. Beers, 20 How. 393, 400, 15 L.Ed. 961; The Lottawanna, 21 Wall. 558, 583, 22 L.Ed. 654; The Eclipse, 135 U.S. 599, 608, 10 S.Ct. 873, 34 L.Ed. 269; The J. E. Rumbell, 148 U.S. 1, 15, 13 S.Ct. 498, 37 L.Ed. 345.1 If jurisdiction in the admiralty of the present suits is to be maintained it must be by reason of the application and validity of the provisions of the Ship Mortgage Act.

1. The application of the statute. The grant of jurisdiction is found in subsection K (46 U.S.C. § 951 (46 USCA § 951)) which provides: 'A preferred mortgage shall constitute a lien upon the mortgaged vessel in the amount of the outstanding mortgage indebtedness secured by such vessel. Upon the default of any term or condition of the mortgage, such lien may be enforced by the mortgagee by suit in rem in ad- miralty. Original jurisdiction of all such suits is granted to the district courts of the United States exclusively.'

The grant is thus one of exclusive jurisdiction to enforce the lien of a 'preferred mortgage.' If the mortgage is a preferred mortgage within the definition of the Act, jurisdiction is granted; otherwise not. 'Preferred mortgages' are carefully defined in the detailed provisions of subsection D. 2 46 U.S.C. § 922 (46 USCA § 922). The applica- tion of this term in the subsequent provisions of the Act, including the provision as to admiralty jurisdiction, is not left to inference but is explicitly stated in subdivision (b) of subsection D as follows: 'Any mortgage which complies in respect to any vessel with the conditions enumerated in this subsection is hereafter in this chapter called a 'preferred mortgage' as to such vessel.'

Subdivison (a) of subsection D provides that a 'valid mortgage,' which 'includes the whole of any vessel of the United States of 200 gross tons and upward,' shall have, in addition, 'in respect to such vessel and as of the date of the compliance with all the provisions of this subdivision, the preferred status given by the provisions of subsection M,'3 46 U.S.C. § 953 (46 USCA § 953). The term 'vessel of the United States' means any vessel documented under the laws of the United States; and, in the case of a mortgage 'involving a trust deed and a bond issue thereunder,' the term 'mortgagee' means the trustee. Subsection B, 46 U.S.C. § 911 (46 USCA § 911). The 'preferred status' given by subsection M is that, on foreclosure and sale in admiralty, all pre-existing claims in the vessel are to be held terminated and thereafter are to attach to the proceeds of the sale, and the 'preferred mortgage lien' is to have priority over all claims against the vessel, except 'preferred maritime liens' and expenses, fees, and costs allowed by the Court. 'Preferred maritime liens' are those arising prior to the recording and indorsement of the mortgage as required, or 'a lien for damages arising out of tort, for wages of a stevedore when employed directly by the owner, operator, master, ship's husband, or agent of the vessel, for wages of the crew of the vessel, for general average, and for salvage, including contract salvage.'

The requirements of subdivision (a) of subsection D (46 USCA § 922), which must be met in order to obtain this preferred status, are that the mortgage shall be indorsed upon the vessel's documents and shall be recorded; that an affidavit shall be filed with the record 'to the effect that the mortgage is made in good faith and without any design to hinder, delay, or defraud any existing or future creditor of the mortgagor or any lienor of the mortgaged vessel'; that the mortgage does not stipulate for a waiver of the preferred status; and that the mortgagee is a citizen of the United States. Subdivisions (c) and (d) of subsection D set forth the nature and manner of the required indorsement upon the documents of the vessel; and subsection C (46 U.S.C. § 921 (46 USCA § 921)), to which subsection D refers, contains detailed provisions as to recording.

Subdivision (e) of subsection D provides that a mortgage which includes property other than a vessel 'shall not be held a preferred mortgage' unless there is provision for the separate discharge of such property by the payment of a specified portion of the mortgage indebtedness; subdivision (f) of subsection D makes provision for the case of a mortgage covering more than one vessel. And where a mortgage covers property in addition to vessels the Act is not to be construed as authorizing a proceeding in rem in admiralty to enforce the rights of the mortgagee in respect to such property. Subsection N,4 46 U.S.C. § 954 (46 USCA § 954).

Subsection E (46 U.S.C. § 923 (46 USCA § 923)) imposes the duty upon the mortgagor to keep on board the mortgaged vessel a certified copy of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
139 cases
  • United States v. Walker, Crim. A. No. 80-486.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana
    • 7 Mayo 1981
    ...Fedorenko v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 101 S.Ct. 737, 751, 66 L.Ed.2d 737 (1981) (quoting Detroit Trust Co. v. The Barlum, 293 U.S. 21, 38, 55 S.Ct. 31, 35, 79 L.Ed. 176 (1934)). The felony and misdemeanor provisions of this statute protect separate and distinct interests and consti......
  • Streckfus Steamers, Inc. v. Kiersky
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 4 Noviembre 1935
    ...7 Wall. 624; Perry v. Haynes, 191 U.S. 17; 1 Benedict on Admiralty (5 Ed.), sec. 53, page 74; 2 Hughes Fed. Prac. sec. 1284; The Thomas Barlun, 55 S.Ct. 31; Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pa., 114 U.S. Parkersburg v. City of Parkersburg, 107 U.S. 691; Cannon v. City of New Orleans, 20 Wall. 577; K......
  • Lowe v. Ingalls Shipbuilding, a Div. of Litton Systems, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 30 Enero 1984
    ... ...      Wiesenburg & Reed, Karl Wiesenburg, John H. Carlson, Pascagoula, Miss., for ... Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, --- U.S. ----, ----, 103 S.Ct. 2841, 2846-2847, ... Sec. 1333 and its predecessors. See Detroit Trust Co. v. Steamer Thomas Barlum, 293 U.S. 21, ... ...
  • Garrett v. Cormack Co
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 14 Diciembre 1942
    ...Jensen line has not extended to this principle. Cf. The Lottawanna, 21 Wall. 558, 575, 22 L.Ed. 654; Detroit Trust Co. v. Barlum S.S. Co., 293 U.S. 21, 43, 55 S.Ct. 31, 38, 79 L.Ed. 176. 11 The Steamer St. Lawrence, 1 Black 522, 526, 527, 17 L.Ed. 180. 12 Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 6......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • The Path of Constitutional Law Suplemmentary Materials
    • 1 Enero 2007
    ...249 (1989), 1289-90 Desist v. United States, 394 U.S. 244, 69 S.Ct. 1030, 22 L.Ed.2d 248 (1969), 225 Detroit Trust Co. v. The Barlum, 293 U.S. 21, 56 S.Ct. 31, 79 L.Ed. 176 (1934), Detwiler, United States v., 338 F.Supp.2d 1166 (D. Or. 2004), 802 Dewitt, United States v., 76 U.S. (9 Wall.) ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT