Frederick Schuchardt and Frederick Gebbard, Libellants and Appellants v. Winthrop Babbidge and Others, Claimants of Half of the Proceeds of the Ship Angelique

Decision Date01 December 1856
Citation60 U.S. 239,19 How. 239,15 L.Ed. 625
PartiesFREDERICK SCHUCHARDT AND FREDERICK C. GEBBARD, LIBELLANTS AND APPELLANTS, v. WINTHROP S. BABBIDGE AND OTHERS, CLAIMANTS OF HALF OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE SHIP ANGELIQUE
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

THIS was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the southern district of New York, sitting in admiralty.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

It was argued by Mr. Cutting upon a brief filed by himself and Mr. Hamilton for the appellants, and Mr. Benedict for the appellees.

The arguments of counsel, with respect to the relative rights of the claimants and libellants to the fund in court, are omitted.

With respect to the jurisdiction of the court, Mr. Cutting's point was this, viz:

Although courts of admiralty in the United States have no power to foreclose a mortgage of a vessel by a sale, or to transfer the possession to the mortgagee, (17 Howard, 399, Bogart v. The Steamboat John Jay,) they may entertain an application by the mortgagee, after a sale, to be paid out of the proceeds of the sale in the registry of the court. (Propeller Monticello, 17 Howard, 152; Admiralty rule, 43.)

Mr. Benedict's point was this:

This is really a suit to foreclose a mortgage, even if it were an original suit against the ship. As a suit against the proceeds, it is in substance a suit in equity, for relief against a regular degree in admiralty. In either case, the District Court had no jurisdiction. (Case of the John Jay, 17 Howard, 399.)

Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court of the United States for the southern district of New York, sitting in admiralty.

Between sixty and seventy libels had been filed in the District Court by material men—men who had furnished supplies; also, by shippers of goods and passengers—against the ship Angelique, of which S. W. Jones was master. These several proceedings were commenced in July and August, 1853, and interlocutory decrees, condemning the vessel, were entered in all of them, and final decrees in some six or seven. One of the parties obtaining a final decree issued execution, and the vessel was sold, and the proceeds brought into court. The vessel sold for $6,900.

In this stage of these proceedings, the present appellants filed their libel against the proceeds of the ship in court, setting, forth, that, being the owners of the vessel, they sold and delivered her to one A. Pellitier, for the sum of $15,000, on the 7th May, 1853; that of this sum a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 cases
  • The Thomas Barlum the John Barlum Detroit Trust Co v. Barlum Co
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 5 Noviembre 1934
    ...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; T......
  • United States v. Rizzo
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 9 Marzo 1936
    ...all existing liens from property to proceeds. Compare The Lottawanna, 20 Wall. 201, 211, 221, 22 L.Ed. 259; Schuchardt v. Babbidge, 19 How. 239, 241, 15 L.Ed. 625. Since counsel did not agree to waive the tax lien on the proceeds, and since the Court of Appeals made no finding of such a wai......
  • Jackson v. Inland Oil and Transport Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 25 Junio 1963
    ...petitions such as were filed by the mortgagees and the material-men in this case. The Globe, 3 How. 568, 573 11 L.Ed. 729; The Angelique, 19 How. 239 75 L.Ed. 625; The Lottawanna, 21 Wall. 558, 582, 583 22 L.Ed. 654; Rule 43 in The litigation in this matter began on April 2, 1959 when Inlan......
  • THE FORT ORANGE
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 20 Diciembre 1933
    ...not have the status of a maritime contract. See The J. E. Rumbell, 148 U. S. 1, 13 S. Ct. 498, 37 L. Ed. 345; Schuchardt v. Babbage, 19 How. (60 U. S.) 239, 15 L. Ed. 625; Bogart v. The John Jay, 17 How. (58 U. S.) 399, 15 L. Ed. 95; Benedict on Admiralty (5th Ed.) §§ 71, The above-quoted p......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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