The Interstate No. 2

• Decision Date: 26 January 1922
• Citation: 290 F. 1015
• Parties: THE INTERSTATE NO. 2.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

290 F. 1015

THE INTERSTATE NO. 2.

United States District Court, D. New Jersey.

January 26, 1922

Crowell & Rouse, of New York City, for libelant Tietjen & Lang Dry dock co.

Alexander & Ash, of New York City, for libelants John W. Sullivan Co. Heipershausen Bros., and M. K. Bowman-Edson Co.

Foley &amp Martin, of New York City, for libelant James Shewan & Sons Inc.

William Matthews, of New York City, for libelant North River Coal &amp Wharf Co.

Weissberger & Leichter, of New York City, for libelant Williams & Wells Co.

LYNCH District Judge.

Maritime liens aggregating over $62,000 were filed and proved by the above-named libelants against the tug Interstate No. 2. The sale of the vessel in admiralty realized the sum of $25,000. The libels, according to the proofs before the commissioner, embrace in each instance separate and distinct claims for repairs, supplies, etc., which were united by each suitor in one libel. The time of accrual of each claim, amount thereof, and nature of claim, as appears from the testimony before the commissioner in each case, are as follows:

Tietjen & Lang Dry Dock Company, repairs, February 19 to May 10, 1921, $15,323.31.

John W. Sullivan Company, repairs, May 28, 1920, to January 30, 1921:

May 29,1920 ........	$ 625.00
June 30, 1920 ........	1,124.24
August 31, 1920 ........	295.00
December 31, 1920 ......	660.00
January 3, 1921 ......	5,282.27
January 3, 1921 ......	3,992.39
January 31, 1921 .......	102.38
	----------
	$12,081.28

James Shewan & Sons, Inc., repairs, March 22, 1920, to November 19, 1920:

March 22, 1920 .....	$ 2,750.00
March 30, 1920 .......	4,150.00
	12,432.28
	400.00
April 16, 1920 .........	993.36
April 24, 1920 .........	311.65
May 13, 1920 .........	1,336.86
June 15, 1920 ..........	352.50
August 17, 1920 ......	7,794.00
	1,347.86
October 9, 1920 ........	763.03
October 9, 1920 ........	877.25
November 19, 1920 ......	807.72
	----------
	$34,016.51

Heipershausen Bros., repairs, December 13, 1920, to January 18, 1921:

December 31, 1920 ..	$ 848.75
January 28, 1921 ......	300.03
	---------
	$1,148.78

M. K. Bowman-Edson Company, chandlery, November 3, 1920, to May 7, 1921:

November 8, 1920 ...	$ 49.51
November 22, 1920 ....	33.90
November 30, 1920 ....	34.48
May 17, 1921 .........	38.31
	-------
	$156.20

North River Coal & Wharf Company, coal:

January 1-11, 1921 ..	$255.00
May 10-13, 1921 ......	707.71
	-------
	$962.71

Williams & Wells Company, chandlery:

January 3, 1921 ...	$203.35
January 4, 1921 .....	42.20
February 7, 1921 .....	3.44
	-------
	$248.99

Between February 14 and May 10, 1921, the Tietjen & Lang Dry Dock Company made repairs to the tug at its yard in Hoboken, amounting to $15,323.31. Subsequently the dry dock company permitted the owner to take the tug out of its possession for work in and about New York Harbor. The vessel had returned for minor repairs and was in the possession of the Tietjen & Lang Company at the time that that company instituted proceedings in admiralty under which the vessel was seized by the marshal of this district-- the Tietjen & Lang Company being the first libelant to institute proceedings. It insists that it is entitled to priority and advances, as one reason, a claim of 'possessory lien' by reason of the vessel having been in its possession when it was seized in the admiralty suit. The case of The Ulrica (D.C.) 224 F. 140, is cited in support of this contention.

In The Ulrica Case the Weehawken Dry Dock Company had in its possession a vessel on a claim for repairs, and at the suit of a third party the vessel was taken out of the possession of the Weehawken Company. Judge Rellstab held that the Weehawken Dry Dock Company was entitled to assert its common-law lien, notwithstanding the taking of the vessel out of its possession by process instituted in admiralty by another claimant. In the instant case the admiralty proceedings were instituted by the Tietjen & Lang Company the company which insists that it is still entitled to assert a common-law lien. I am not convinced that the Tietjen & Lang Company did not waive its...