The U. & I.

• Decision Date: 07 January 1924
• Docket Number: 885.
• Citation: 294 F. 985
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maine
• Parties: THE U. & I.

294 F. 985

THE U. & I.

No. 885.

United States District Court, D. Maine, Southern Division.

January 7, 1924

Nathan W. Thompson (of Thompson, Hoague & Hill), of Portland, Me for libelant and intervener.

Gerry L. Brooks, of Portland, Me., for claimant.

HALE District Judge.

This libel is brought against a small fishing vessel, the motorboat U. & I., to recover for supplies furnished on the orders of the master and owner, and to enforce a maritime lien on the vessel for such supplies. The Harris Company intervenes, also, to recover for similar supplies so furnished, and to enforce its lien. The claimant makes a general denial, and alleges that he is now owner of the motorboat; that both the libelant and intervener have lost their liens by reason of laches; that the boat has been sold between the time the supplies were furnished and the time of filing the libel; and that the present holder is a purchaser of the boat without notice of the liens.

1. The proofs show that the libelant and intervener furnished the supplies stated in the libel and petition to intervene. The claimant pleads payment, but has failed to prove payment by satisfactory affirmative testimony. The books, together with the testimony, afford persuasive proof that no payment has been made.

2. The claimant alleges that the libelant and intervener have waived their rights to a lien by failure to enforce them within a reasonable time and until after the claimant, an innocent purchaser, had bought and paid for the boat, without knowledge of the lien.

The claimant purchased the boat on August 23, 1923. The libel was brought on September 21, 1923. The libelant's account was a running account, for gasoline and oil furnished to the boat from July 2, 1922, to April 4, 1923. The proofs show that the vessel was fishing out of the port of Portland during the months of July, August, September, and October, 1922; that she went to Plymouth the last of October, 1922, and came back to Portland the latter part of December, and remained tied up at Portland most of the time until July, 1923.

Claimant urges that, after many conferences with the managing owner and after making reasonable inquiry in an effort to ascertain whether or not the vessel was free from lien claims, he purchased the vessel; that upon the advice of counsel he took possession of her in July, 1923, and operated her under a contract of sale; and that on August 23d, having failed to discover any liens, and relying upon the assurance of the managing owner that there were no lien claims against the vessel, he completed the purchase, paying to the owner the full value of the same. It appears that he paid part in cash and part in notes on time.

The libelant and intervener say that they did not know of any sale, and that if they had been informed of it they would have taken earlier proceedings, or would have notified the purchaser; but that they acted in good faith and made no unreasonable delay.

A maritime lien, once attaching to a ship, from its nature follows the ship into the hands of a purchaser, unless it is lost by laches of the lienor in enforcing his lien. The time expiring, before laches will bar a claim, differs according to the circumstances of each case. Where the interest of third parties intervenes, the time is shorter than in cases where there is involved...