|
|
Piedmont & Georges Co. v. Seaboard Fisheries Co., 254 U.S. 1 (1920)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Piedmont & Georges Co. v. Seaboard Fisheries Co., 254 U.S. 1 (1920)
Piedmont & Georges Creek Coal Company v. Seaboard Fisheries Company No. 58 Argued March 16, 17, 1920 Decided October 11, 1920 254 U.S. 1
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
Syllabus
An oil company, owner of a fleet of fishing steamers and also of oil factories where the catch was delivered and the vessels coaled, having mortgaged this property and being without money or credit, made an agreement with a coal dealer to furnish the coal necessary for the season’s operations, both parties understanding that the coal would be used by the factories as well as by the vessels, that the greater part would be used by the vessels, that the law would afford a lien on the vessels for the purchase price, and that the coal dealer would thus have security. The coal was billed and delivered directly to the oil company, title passing with delivery; it was then stored by that company in its factories, and afterwards appropriated by it mainly to the vessels, but partly to the factories, as occasion arose, and there was no understanding when the contract was made or at times of delivery that any part of it was for any particular vessel or for the vessels then composing the fleet. In libels of some of the vessels involving the coal dealer’s rights as against a purchaser under the prior mortgage, held: (1) that the coal dealer had no maritime lien for furnishing supplies "to a vessel . . . upon the order of the owner" under the Act of June 23, 1910, c. 373, § 1, 36 Stat. 604, because the coal furnished the vessel was furnished by their owner, and not by the coal dealer, p. 6 et seq.; (2) that the fact that such maritime use had been contemplated did not render the subsequent appropriation by the owner a furnishing by the coal dealer to the several vessels, p. 8; nor (3) was the understanding of the owner and the dealer that the law would afford a lien of any legal significance a against the purchaser under the mortgage. P. 10. To hold that a maritime lien for the unpaid purchase price of supplies arises in favor of the seller merely because the purchaser, who is the owner of a vessel, subsequently appropriates the supplies to her use would involve abandonment of the principle upon which maritime liens rest and the substitution therefor of the very different principle which underlies mechanics’ and materialmen’s liens on houses and other structures. P. 8.
253 F. 20 affirmed.
The case is stated in the opinion.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Piedmont & Georges Co. v. Seaboard Fisheries Co., 254 U.S. 1 (1920) in 254 U.S. 1 254 U.S. 2–254 U.S. 5. Original Sources, accessed November 22, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=JSX5K9GZYVCNZGK.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Piedmont & Georges Co. v. Seaboard Fisheries Co., 254 U.S. 1 (1920), in 254 U.S. 1, pp. 254 U.S. 2–254 U.S. 5. Original Sources. 22 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=JSX5K9GZYVCNZGK.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Piedmont & Georges Co. v. Seaboard Fisheries Co., 254 U.S. 1 (1920). cited in 1920, 254 U.S. 1, pp.254 U.S. 2–254 U.S. 5. Original Sources, retrieved 22 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=JSX5K9GZYVCNZGK.
|