## Facts

- Coal merchants furnished coal to the steam tug *John G. Stevens* in New York between December 1885 and March 7, 1886, and filed notices creating state statutory liens for those supplies.
- On March 8, 1886, while towing the schooner *C. R. Flint* in New York Harbor, the *John G. Stevens* negligently caused the *C. R. Flint* to collide with the bark *Doris Eckhoff*, which was in tow of another tug, the *R. S. Carter*.
- On March 16, 1886, the owners of the *C. R. Flint* filed a libel in admiralty against the *John G. Stevens* and the *R. S. Carter* for collision damages.
- On the same day, the coal merchants filed a libel against the *John G. Stevens* to enforce their state-law supply lien.
- The district court entered a decree for collision damages against both tugs in excess of $15,000 and a separate decree for the coal merchants for $218.07.
- The district court gave the supply lien priority, exhausting the proceeds from sale of the *John G. Stevens* and leaving the collision decree unsatisfied.
- On appeal, a priority question concerning the competing liens was certified for review.

## Issues

1. Whether a maritime lien for tort damages arising from a collision is preferred, in admiralty, over a lien for prior supplies.
2. Whether a tow’s claim against its tug for negligent towage that brings the tow into collision with a third vessel is a tort claim giving rise to a maritime lien.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held that a collision caused by a vessel’s fault creates a maritime lien for damages that is preferred over a lien for previous supplies.
- The Court held that a tow’s claim against its tug for negligent towage resulting in collision with a third vessel sounds in tort and gives rise to a preferred maritime lien.
- The Court rejected the priority given to the supply lien and required that the collision-damage lien take precedence against the vessel’s proceeds.

## Legal Principles

- A vessel’s fault in a collision creates a maritime lien for damages that attaches at the moment the damage is done and is enforceable in rem against the vessel.
- The collision-damage maritime lien is treated as a proprietary interest that, when enforced, relates back to the time the lien attached for purposes of priority.
- In admiralty, maritime liens for collision damages are preferred over liens for earlier contractual supplies.
- A tug’s duty to exercise due care toward its tow is imposed by law; negligent towage causing collision gives the tow a tort claim and a maritime lien against the tug.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that the maritime lien arising from negligent towage collision damages attaches at the collision and has priority over a previously created state-law lien for supplies furnished to the tug in its home port.


The John G. Stevens, 170 U.S. 113 (1898)