Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/464

 TOWN OF PBLHAM V. BCHOONER B. F, WOOLSET. 457 �The Town of Pelham v. The Schooner B. P. Woolsby, etc. (District Court, S. D. New York. July 2, 1880.) �1. Admiralty Jurisdiction — Maritime Contiîact — Oommon-Law Rem- �EDT. — A suit fo enforce a maritime contract is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the admiralty, " saving to suitors in ail cases the riglit of a common-law remedy, where the common-law is competent to giveit." ISt. 77, J9. �2. Samb — Saïie— Equitable Remedy. — The reservation of the act of con- �gress relates to well-iînown forma of actions and remedies, distin-. guished alike from those presented in rem in courts of admiralty, and from those that are f'eculiar to courts of equity. �3. Bame~Sam:b— Common-Law Lien — Equitable Remedt. — A statutory �remedy in the nature of a bill In equity to foreclose a mortgago, for the enforcement of a common-law lien foundfid upon a maritime contract, is not within the reservation of the act of congress limiting the admiralty jurisdiction. �4. Contract — Lien. — A lien is not a collateral contract ; it is a right in, or �claim against, some interest in the subjeot of the contract, created by the law as an incident of the contract itself. �Scudder Harter and Mr. Ilotchkiss, for Hawkins. �H. B. Kinghorn, for Terrell. �CnoATE, D. J. This is a libel for -wliarfage against the schooner B. P. "Woolsey, which belongs to this port. She is a yessel engaged in commerce not confined to ports within. ths state of New York. Af ter she was eeized by the marshal, upon the process issued in this case, two parties appeared as claimants, each insisting that he is entitled, as owner, to bond the vessel and defend the suit. The facts respecting their several claims are not disputed. The claimant Daniel H. Terrell is coneeded to have been the owner of the vessel. The other claimant is John P. Hawkins. His only title is a bill of sale from a receiver appointed in a suit brought and prosecuted to judgmeut in a state court; and the question is whether this transfer is valid, and has extinguished the titlô^ of Terrell. �The suit in which the receiver was appointed was b.Yottgfit under a statute of New York passed on the eighth day of ����