76 U.S. 758 - The Guy — 76 U.S. 758

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1907 · most notably The Valencia (1897), The Winnebago (1907)

8 federal appellate · 14 district · 1 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶11. The principles laid down in The Grapeshot (supra, 129), so far as relate* to liens upon foreign vessels for repairs, affirmed

¶22. The fact that the person calling himself owner and agent of the vessel gave acceptances for the amount charged for the repairs held not to affect the case, the acceptor having been insolvent and unworthy of credit, and the credit having in fact been given to the boat.

¶3Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of New York.

¶4Tall filed a libel, in the District Court at New York, against the steamer Guy, claiming a lien on the boat for repairs made upon her in Baltimore, Maryland, and alleged by the libel to have been necessary to fit her for the prosecution of her then employment, which was, in connection with several other boats, the transportation of the government mails, and of passengers and freight, between Norfolk, Virginia, and Newbern, North Carolina. It was admitted that Baltimore was not the home-port of the Guy, and indeed that she did not belong to Maryland at all. The repairs were ordered by one Olney, who called himself proprietor and agent of the line, aud seemed to have been the owner of the Guy; and they were reasonably fit and necessary. There was proof that the libellant received from Olney acceptances for the amount of the repairs; but none that they were taken in absolute payment. On the contrary, it appeared that the acceptor was insolvent and unworthy of credit, and that, in fact, the credit was given to the boat.

¶5The boat having subsequently arrived in New York, was arrested on this libel. One Healy now appeared as claimant, setting up a transfer to him subsequent to the date of the repairs made, and resisted a condemnation.

¶6 *759The District Court decreed iu favor of the libellant, and the Circuit Court having affirmed the decree, the case was brought here.

¶7After argument by Mr. Eoarts, for the appellant, and Messrs. W. W. Goodrich and 0. Horwitz, contra,

¶8The CHIEF JUSTICE

¶9delivered the judgment of the court, to the effect, that upon the facts established it was apparent that the case was to be governed by the principles settled at this term in the case of The Grapeshot,*and that the decree of the Circuit Court having been in accordance with those principles, must be

¶10Affirmed.