Summary

Pierce Butler James Stewart Company v. Rivara…

The purpose of the enrollment of vessels is to give to them the privileges of American vessels as well as the protection of our flag. There is no foundation for the contention earnestly urged by plaintiff in error that Congress by these acts created 'a new form of property known as vessels of the United States' or that enrolled vessels are 'nationalized or federalized' in respect of conditional sale contracts such as the one here involved.
Source: Wikisource

Pierce Butler James Stewart Company v. Rivara…

Counsel for plaintiff in error argues that, during the period which the state law requires property retaken to be retained, persons having claims against such vessels for supplies, salvage, wages of seamen and the like cannot proceed in rem to enforce their maritime liens. But the controversy in this case is exclusively between the buyer and seller. No third person is here asserting rights as a purchaser or as a maritime lien claimant.
Source: Wikisource

Pierce Butler James Stewart Company v. Rivara…

In January, 1922, the buyer brought this action to recover the amount paid on the purchase price. The basis of his claim was that, although he did not comply with the contract or make good his default, the seller failed to sell the tug, or to give notice of sale, in accordance with sections 65 and 66 of the Personal Property Law of New York (Consol. Laws, c. 41) . The seller answered that the state law did not apply to vessels documented in accordance with federal law and set up counterclaims for amounts paid by it to or for the buyer.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature