Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/746

 734 federaIj bspobter. �" the lien f or bottomry on aoy vessel * * * shall net loae its priority oP'be in any way afEected by the provisiona of this section." �The cases cited from Bissell, Abbott, and Woods appear to have been decided upon the assumption that the lien or operation of the mortgage is in some way created by or derived from the act of congress, and therefore it is superior to that of the material man. �The act has been twice before the supreme court for con- sideration, (White's Bank v. Smith, 7 Wall. 646; Aldrich v. ^tna, 8 Wall. 491,) and the point there decided, so far as it can be gathered from the opinions of Mr. Justice Nelson, ia that, the statute having provided a uniform registration for instruments affecting the ownership of vessels, and declared them invalid, with certain exceptions, unless so registered, by implication it excludes all further state legislation from the subject ; as that they should be also registered or filed in the county clerk's office and refiled at the end of a year, or that they should be void unless accompanied by possession. Beyond this these cases donot go, and there is no warrant in them for the doctrine that the mortgage is called into existence by the act of congress, or that its lien or operation is in any way preferred or enlarged by it. On the contrary, it existed and was used as a means of pledging or transfer- ring the property in a vessel under and by virtue of the gen- erai law of the state, before the act of congress was passed. 8ince then, in addition to the formalities prescribed by the state law for its execution it must be registered in the proper collector's office, but when that is done its effect and rank as a lien still depend upon the state law. The registration under the act of congress is simply necessary to make it operative as to third persons without notice of its contents. �So far, then, as I am able to discern, there is nothing in the language or purpose of the act of congress from which it can be inferred that it was the intention to prefer the lien of the mortgagee to that of a material man or any other. As was said in this court in The Favorite, 3 Sawy. 409 : "There is nothing in the language of the section [4192, Eev. St.] that indicates an intention to enlarge the operation of a ��� �