Skip to main content
· 11/28/1910

United States v. Ansonia Brass & Copper Co.

Citations

  • 218 U.S. 452
  • 31 S. Ct. 49
  • 54 L. Ed. 1107
  • 1910 U.S. LEXIS 2041

Syllabus

<p>Where the United States claimed in an action in the state court to determine liens on vessels in course of construction, that, under the contract, title had vested in the United States, or that liens had been specially reserved thereon, and also claimed that the rights of the United States were superior to all others and could not be retarded or impeded by the . state lien law, assertions are made of rights and immunities which are the creation of Federal authority, and, if denied by the state court, this court has jurisdiction under § 709, Rev, Stat., to review the judgment.</p> <p>Stipulations entered into by the United States district attorney to obtain possession of vessels in course of construction and seized by judicial proceedings under state law should not, under §§ 3753, 3754, Rev. Stat., be construed as depriving the United States of any rights asserted under the contracts for constructing such vessels.</p> <p>Construing the three contracts for construction of vessels involved in this case, the court construes one contract as vesting title in the United States as the work progressed and the others as not giving the United States a superior lien’on the uncompleted vessel as work progressed: in regard to the one contract, the state lien law do'es not, and in regard to the other contract such law does, apply.</p> <p>Vessels in course of construction for the United States, the title to which under the contract, vests in the Government as fast as constructed, become instrumentalities of the Government and for reasons of public policy cannot be seized under state laws to answer ’ private claims.</p> <p>Quaere, whether a joint resolution has-the effect of an act of Congress; but held that the resolution of May'5,1894, No. 24,28 Stat. 582, permitting partial payments on vessels under construction for the Treasury Department^ did not give the Government an express statutory lien on such vessels superior to those given to materialmen by the ' state lien law.</p>

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • property “intended for public use could not be seized under state laws to answer the claim of a private person, however meritorious.”
  • property “intended for public use could not be seized under state laws to answer the claim of a private person, however meritorious.”
  • materialman’s lien against vessel unenforceable where title had passed to the United States
  • “In any event, it could not be tolerated that property of the United States could be seized or encumbered under state lien laws of the character in question.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Day

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.