## Facts

- The Scottish steamship *Bold Buccleugh* collided with and sank the barque *William* in the River Humber, England, on December 14, 1848.
- The owners of the *William* (including Bell) promptly filed a collision “cause of damage” in the English High Court of Admiralty as an **in rem** proceeding against the *Bold Buccleugh*, and a warrant of arrest issued.
- Before the English process could be executed, the *Bold Buccleugh* sailed from Hull to Scotland, so the vessel could not be arrested in England at that time.
- The *William*’s owners then sued the *Bold Buccleugh*’s owners in the Scottish Court of Session in an **in personam** action for the same collision damage; the steamer was attached there as security and then released upon bail.
- While the Scottish action remained pending (and before the collision claim was satisfied), the *Bold Buccleugh* was sold to Daniel Harmer, who purchased for value without notice of the outstanding claim.
- Harmer brought the vessel back to England. Upon the vessel’s return, the *Bold Buccleugh* was arrested at Hull under process connected to the original English in rem collision claim (with fresh steps taken to proceed in rem).
- After the English arrest, the *William*’s owners directed their Scottish agents to abandon the Scottish case; the Scottish suit was treated as effectively discontinued in practice, though it had not yet been formally dismissed.
- Harmer appeared under protest in the English Admiralty Court and argued that the sale to him freed the ship from liability and that the Scottish proceedings barred the English Admiralty case.
- The High Court of Admiralty rejected Harmer’s objections and held the vessel remained liable in rem. Harmer appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

## Issues

1. Whether the pending Scottish **in personam** action arising from the same collision barred or required suspension of the English Admiralty **in rem** proceeding against the vessel (lis alibi pendens).
2. Whether a collision creates a maritime lien that attaches at the time of the tort and remains enforceable in rem against the vessel after a bona fide sale to a purchaser without notice.

## Decision

- The Privy Council **affirmed** the decree of the High Court of Admiralty.
- The plea based on the Scottish litigation was rejected: the Scottish suit was in personam (with attachment used only as collateral security), while the English suit was in rem against the ship, so the pendency of the former did not bar the latter; in any event, the Scottish suit had been practically abandoned.
- The Privy Council held that collision damage gives rise to a **maritime lien** on the offending vessel that attaches at the moment of collision and continues against the ship despite a later sale to an innocent purchaser; therefore, the *Bold Buccleugh* could be arrested and proceeded against in rem in Harmer’s hands.

## Legal Principles

- Damage caused by a maritime collision creates a **maritime lien** on the offending vessel at the time of the collision.
- A maritime lien is a claim against the **res** (the vessel) and does not depend on possession; it is not a common-law lien requiring custody of the property.
- The lien “travels with the thing” into whosesoever hands the vessel passes, including a purchaser for value without notice.
- An Admiralty proceeding **in rem** is the process used to enforce and perfect an existing inchoate right that dates from the moment the lien attached; once enforced, it relates back to that time.
- A prior or pending **in personam** action based on the same collision does not, by itself, bar an Admiralty **in rem** action against the vessel when the proceedings are different in character.
- A maritime lien is not indefeasible and may be lost by delay where third-party rights are harmed (laches).

## Conclusion

The Privy Council held that the *Bold Buccleugh* remained subject to an in rem collision claim in England even though the injured owners had pursued a separate in personam case in Scotland and even though the vessel had been sold to Harmer without notice, because the collision created a maritime lien that attached immediately and continued against the ship until satisfied or lost by delay.


Harmer v. Bell (The Bold Buccleugh), 7 Moore P.C. 267, 13 Eng. Rep. 884 (1852)