WmTB v. Two HUNDRED AND NINETy-TWO THOUSAND THREE HUNDBlilD DOLLARS, Proceeds of the Steam-Boats Americus, etc. 1
(District Court, E. D. N61JJ York. 1.
December 28, 1883.)
SHIP'S BUSBAND-LmN-PROCEEDS Oll' SALE Oll' VESSEL.
There is no lien on moneys, the proceeds of the sale of steam-boats, in favor of one who acted in the capacity of ship's husband, for sums paid lIy him in satisfaction of demands claimed to be at the sUbsisting maritime liens on the vessels, such proceeds not being in his hands.
SAME-ExcEPTION TO LmEL.
Exception to a libel claiming such a lien on proceeds of certain vessels was sustained and the libel dismissed.
In Admiralty. D. If T. McMahon, for libelant. Blair, Snow If Rudd, (R. D. Benedict, of counsel,) for respondent. BENEDIOT, J. This case comes before the court upon exception to the libel, upon the ground, among others, that the libel fails to state facts, showing the libelant, R. Cornell White, to have a lien upon the moneys proceeded against. These moneys, as the libel shows, are the proceeds of certain steam-boats, of which vessels the libelant was ship's husband. The claim sought to be enforced against these moneys consists of various sums paid from time to time by the libelant, while acting in the capacity of ship's husband, in satisfaction of certain demands, which were at the time, as the libelant claims, subsisting maritime liens upon the respective vessels. Upon this statement the libelant had no lien upon the vessels, and has none upon the proceeds, not being in his hands. The authorities are clear to the effect that a ship's husband has no lien upon the ship for sums paid by him in satisfaction of the ship's bills. The Larch, 2 Curt. C. C.427; The Sarah J. Weed, 2 Low. 556; The J. C. WiUiams, 15 FED. REP. 558. These cases are decisive of the present case. If authority were wanting, my opinion would still be adverse to the libelant. The libelant cannot maintain this action if he could not maintain an action against the vessels themselves, and there are, in my opinion, strong considerations which should forbid a ship's husband to acquire, as against his principals, a lien upon their vessel for payments which he is employed to make for them, and which he makes for a compensation paid him. . This exception to the libel is therefore well taken, and the libel must be dismissed, with costs.
l.Reported by R. D. & Wyllys Benedict, of the New York bar.
ALBRIGHT f1. OYSTER.
I. M. & S. By.
S. D. Mis8ouri. March 24, 1894.)
!bmOVAL Oll' CAOS ll'ROM: STATE CoURTS TO THB CIROUIT OoURT Oll' T1tlll UNITED 8'l'ATlllS.
Either party may remove into a circuit court of the United States any case where the controversy is between oitizenl of difterent states.
Motion to remand a case removed to this court from the circuit court of Jefferson county, Missouri, at the instance of the defendant who is a resident of Missouri. William M. Eccle. and E. P. John,on, for plaintiff. Bennett Pike, for defendant. TREAT, J. The court is referred to sections of the Revised Statutes which embraced all statutes prior to December 1, 1873. Since then the act of March 3, 1875, has enlarged the jurisdiction of the federal oourts, whereby either party may remove into a circuit court of the United States any case where the controversy is between oitizens of different states. The motion to remand is overruled.
OYSTER and others.l
aourt, s. D. Millouri.
A.· B., 0., and D. had an interest in certain lands. D. died, and E. quaJlfted 85 hil executrix, and in that capacity altreed with A., B., and O. that the land Ihould be divided, and O.'s share conveyed to X. in trust for 0.'1 children. The division was made, and O.'s share was conveyed to X. under an oral agreement that he would hold it in trust for said children; but the deed was abso· lute on its face, and recited a consideration. though Done was paid by X. X. afterwards, without consideration, made an absolute conveyance of said property to A .. A. then brought luit in ejectment against C., who held possession of said property for his children, and relJovered judgment. In a suit brought by C. and several of his children, in equity, to have said judgment at law raItrained, and for other relief, held: (1) That said oonveyance to X., under said oral agreement, had oaused a resulting trult to arise in favor of O. 'I children, and that X. held lubject . (2) That A. received the legal title to said property from x., subjeot to said &rust. (3) That Eo, as executrix of D., and B. were both proper pam...
In Equity. Iwer.
Demurrers and plea. to the bill, aDd exoeptioDilo anLoula bar.
by BenJ, P. Rex, FAq., of the