Vose v. Cockcroft (44 N.Y. 415, 1871)

Hunt, C.

The appellants, argue that the statute, under which the warrant of attachment was issued, is in conflict with the Constitution and laws of the United States, and void. Hence, they argue, the bond upon which the action is brought is also void, and all the proceedings in the action, including the judgment, are void and without effect. The decision in The Josephine (39 N. Y., 19) is cited as controlling this case.

In that case, arising under the act of 1862, the facts were as follows: The vessel was enrolled at the custom-house in New York, and adjudged to be in a domestic port. The plaintiffs, having furnished supplies for the vessel, which was then plying between New York and Monmouth, New Jersey, issued a warrant of attachment against said steamboat, under the act aforesaid. The sheriff seized her, and made his return of the seizure. The owners obtained an order to show cause why the attachment should not be vacated, on the ground that the ' State courts had no jurisdiction to enforce a lien based upon claims of that character; that such power was vested exclusively in the courts of the United States having admiralty jurisdiction. The judge at Special Term made an order vacating the warrant, on the ground mentioned. Upon an appeal to the General Term of the first district, this order was reversed. The owners thereupon appealed to the Court of Appeals, where the order of the General Term was reversed, and that of the Special Term affirmed, upon the ground there taken. The head-note in the 39th New York gives the result in these words: “ A proceeding against a steamer, by name, ' authorized by the Laws of 1862, chapter 482, is a proceeding in the nature and with all the incidents of a suit in admiralty. The District Courts of the United States are, by the Constitution and laws thereof, vested with exclusive original cogni.zance in all cases involving admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. State laws conferring jurisdiction in such cases upon :State courts are in conflict with the Constitution and laws of ,the United States, and void.”

The respondents argue that the present case is to be distinc-guished from that of The Josephine,m these respects :

1st. The proceeding in the case of The Josephine was not