Chapter XVII: Front Matter (17)

LIECHTENSTEIN, the smallest independent state in Europe, save San Marino and Monaco. It lies some way S. of the Lake of Constance, and extends along the right bank of the Rhine, opposite Swiss territory, between Sargans and Sennwald, while on the E. it also comprises the upper portion of the Samina glen that joins the Ill valley at Frastanz, above Feldkirch. It is about 12 m. in length, and covers an area of 61.4 or 68.8 sq. m. (according to different estimates). Its loftiest point rises at the S.E. angle of the state, in the Rhätikon range, and is named to Naafkopf or the Rothe Wand (8445 ft.); on its summit the Swiss, Vorarlberg, and Liechtenstein frontiers join. In 1901 the population was 9477 (of whom 4890 were women and 4587 men). The capital is Vaduz (1523 ft.), with about 1100 inhabitants, and 2 m. S. of the Schaan railway station, which is 2 m. from Buchs (Switz.). Even in the 17th century the Romonsch language was not extinguished in the state, and many Romonsch place-names still linger, e.g. Vaduz, Samina, Gavadura, &c. Now the population is German-speaking and Romanist. The constitution of 1862 was amended in 1878, 1895 and 1901. All males of 24 years of age are primary electors, while the diet consists of 12 members, holding their seats for 4 years and elected indirectly, together with 3 members nominated by the prince. The prince has a lieutenant resident at Vaduz, whence there is an appeal to the prince's court at Vienna, with a final appeal (since 1884) to the supreme district court at Innsbruck. Compulsory military service was abolished in 1868, the army having till then been 91 strong. The principality forms ecclesiastically part of the diocese of Coire, while as regards customs duties it is joined with the Vorarlberg, and as regards postal and coinage arrangements with Austria, which (according to the agreement of 1852, renewed in 1876, by which the principality entered the Austrian customs union) must pay it at least 40,000 crowns annually. In 1904 the revenues of the principality amounted to 888,931 crowns, and its expenditure to 802,163 crowns. There is no public debt.

The county of Vaduz and the lordship of Schellenberg passed through many hands before they were bought in 1613 by the count of Hohenems (to the N. of Feldkirch). In consequence of financial embarrassments, that family had to sell both (the lordship in 1699, the county in 1713) to the Liechtenstein family, which had since the 12th century owned two castles of that name (both now ruined), one in Styria and the other a little S.W. of Vienna. In 1719 these new acquisitions were raised by the emperor into a principality under the name of Liechtenstein, which formed part successively of the Holy Roman Empire (till 1806) and of the German Confederation (1815-1866), having been sovereign 1806-1815 as well as since 1866.

See J. Falke's _Geschichte d. fürstlichen Hauses Liechtenstein_ (3
vols., Vienna, 1868-1883); J. C. Heer, _Vorarlberg und Liechtenstein_
(Feldkirch, 1906); P. Kaiser, _Geschichte d. Fürstenthums
Liechtenstein_ (Coire, 1847); F. Umlauft, _Das Fürstenthum
Liechtenstein_ (Vienna, 1891); E. Walder, _Aus den Bergen_ (Zürich,
1896); A. Waltenberger, _Algäu, Vorarlberg, und Westtirol_ (Rtes. 25
and 26) (10th ed., Innsbruck, 1906). (W. A. B. C.)

LIÉGE, one of the nine provinces of Belgium, touching on the east the Dutch province of Limburg and the German district of Rhenish Prussia. To a certain extent it may be assumed to represent the old prince-bishopric. Besides the city of Liége it contains the towns of Verviers, Dolhain, Seraing, Huy, &c. The Meuse flows through the centre of the province, and its valley from Huy down to Herstal is one of the most productive mineral districts in Belgium. Much has been done of late years to develop the agricultural resources of the Condroz district south of the Meuse. The area of the province is 723,470 acres, or 1130 sq. m. The population in 1904 was 863,254, showing an average of 763 per sq. m.

LIÉGE (Walloon, _Lige_, Flemish, _Luik_, Ger. _Lüttich_), the capital of the Belgian province that bears its name. It is finely situated on the Meuse, and was long the seat of a prince-bishopric. It is the centre of the Walloon country, and Scott commits a curious mistake in _Quentin Durward_ in making its people talk Flemish. The Liége Walloon is the nearest existing approach to the old Romance language. The importance of the city to-day arises from its being the chief manufacturing centre in Belgium, and owing to its large output of arms it has been called the Birmingham of the Netherlands. The productive coal-mines of the Meuse valley, extending from its western suburb of Seraing to its northern faubourg of Herstal, constitute its chief wealth. At Seraing is established the famous manufacturing firm of Cockerill, whose offices are in the old summer palace of the prince-bishops.

The great cathedral of St Lambert was destroyed and sacked by the French in 1794, and in 1802 the church of St Paul, dating from the 10th century but rebuilt in the 13th, was declared the cathedral. The law courts are installed in the old palace of the prince-bishops, a building which was constructed by Bishop Everard de la Marck between 1508 and 1540. The new boulevards are well laid out, especially those flanking the river, and the views of the city and surrounding country are very fine. The university, which has separate schools for mines and arts and manufactures, is one of the largest in the country, and enjoys a high reputation for teaching in its special line.

Liége is a fortified position of far greater strength than is generally appreciated. In the wars of the 18th century Liége played but a small part. It was then defended only by the citadel and a detached fort on the right side of the Meuse, but at a short distance from the river, called the Chartreuse. Marlborough captured these forts in 1703 in preparation for his advance in the following year into Germany which resulted in the victory of Blenheim. The citadel and the Chartreuse were still the only defences of Liége in 1888 when, after long discussions, the Belgian authorities decided on adequately fortifying the two important passages of the Meuse at Liége and Namur. A similar plan was adopted at each place, viz. the construction of a number of detached forts along a perimeter drawn at a distance varying from 4 to 6 m. of the town, so as to shelter it so far as possible from bombardment. At Liége twelve forts were constructed, six on the right bank and six on the left. Those on the right bank beginning at the north and following an eastern curve are Barchon, Evegnée, Fléron, Chaudfontaine, Embourg and Boncelles. The average distance between each fort is 4 m., but Fléron and Chaudfontaine are separated by little over 1 m. in a direct line as they defend the main line of railway from Germany. The six forts on the left bank also commencing at the north, but following a western curve, are Pontisse, Liers, Lantin, Loncin, Hollogne and Flemalle. These forts were constructed under the personal direction of General Brialmont, and are on exactly the same principle as those he designed for the formidable defences of Bucarest. All the forts are constructed in concrete with casemates, and the heavy guns are raised and lowered automatically. Communication is maintained between the different forts by military roads in all cases, and by steam tramways in some. It is estimated that 25,000 troops would be required for the defence of the twelve forts, but the number is inadequate for the defence of so important and extensive a position. The population of Liége, which in 1875 was only 117,600, had risen by 1900 to 157,760, and in 1905 it was 168,532.

_History._--Liége first appears in history about the year 558, at which date St Monulph, bishop of Tongres, built a chapel near the confluence of the Meuse and the Legia. A century later the town, which had grown up round this chapel, became the favourite abode of St Lambert, bishop of Tongres, and here he was assassinated. His successor St Hubert raised a splendid church over the tomb of the martyred bishop about 720 and made Liége his residence. It was not, however, until about 930 that the title bishop of Tongres was abandoned for that of bishop of Liége. The episcopate of Notger (972-1008) was marked by large territorial acquisitions, and the see obtained recognition as an independent principality of the Empire. The popular saying was "Liége owes Notger to God, and everything else to Notger." By the munificent encouragement of successive bishops Liége became famous during the 11th century as a centre of learning, but the history of the town for centuries records little else than the continuous struggles of the citizens to free themselves from the exactions of their episcopal sovereigns; the aid of the emperor and of the dukes of Brabant being frequently called in to repress the popular risings. In 1316 the citizens compelled Bishop Adolph de la Marck to sign a charter, which made large concessions to the popular demands. It was, however, a triumph of short duration, and the troubles continued, the insurgent subjects now and again obtaining a fleeting success, only to be crushed by the armies of the powerful relatives of the bishops, the houses of Brabant or of Burgundy. During the episcopate of Louis de Bourbon (1456-1484) the Liégeois, having expelled the bishop, had the temerity to declare war on Philip V., duke of Burgundy. Philip's son, Charles the Bold, utterly defeated them in 1467, and razed the walls of the town to the ground. In the following year the citizens again revolted, and Charles being once more successful delivered up the city to sack and pillage for three days, and deprived the remnant of the citizens of all their privileges. This incident is narrated in _Quentin Durward_. The long episcopate of Eberhard de la Marck (1505-1538) was a time of good administration and of quiet, during which the town regained something of its former prosperity. The outbreak of civil war between two factions, named the _Cluroux_ and the _Grignoux_, marked the opening of the 17th century. Bishop Maximilian Henry of Bavaria (1650-1688) at last put an end to the internal strife and imposed a regulation (_règlement_) which abolished all the free institutions of the citizens and the power of the gilds. Between this date and the outbreak of the French Revolution the chief efforts of the prince-bishops were directed to maintaining neutrality in the various wars, and preserving their territory from being ravaged by invading armies. They were only in part successful. Liége was taken by Marlborough in 1702, and the fortress was garrisoned by the Dutch until 1718. The French revolutionary armies overran the principality in 1792, and from 1794 to the fall of Napoleon it was annexed to France, and was known as the department of the Ourthe. The Congress of Vienna in 1815 decreed that Liége with the other provinces of the southern Netherlands should form part of the new kingdom of the Netherlands under the rule of William I., of the house of Orange. The town of Liége took an active part in the Belgian revolt of 1830, and since that date the ancient principality has been incorporated in the kingdom of Belgium.

The see, which at first bore the name of the bishopric of Tongres, was under the metropolitan jurisdiction of the archbishops of Cologne. The principality comprised besides the town of Liége and its district, the counties of Looz and Hoorn, the marquessate of Franchimont, and the duchy of Bouillon.

AUTHORITIES.--Théodore Bouille, _Histoire de la ville et du pays de
Liége_ (3 vols., Liége, 1725-1732); A. Borgnet, _Histoire de la
révolution liégeoise_ (2 vols., Liége, 1865); Baron B. C. de Gerlache,
_Histoire de Liége_ (Brussels, 1843); J. Daris, _Histoire du diocèse
et de la principauté de Liége_ (10 vols., Liége, 1868-1885); Ferdinand
Henaux, _Histoire du pays de Liége_ (2 vols., Liége, 1857); L. Polain,
_Histoire de l'ancien pays de Liége_ (2 vols., Liége, 1844-1847). For
full bibliography see Ulysse Chevalier, _Répertoire des sources
historiques_. _Topo-bibliographie_, s.v. (Montbéliard, 1900).

LIEGE, an adjective implying the mutual relationship of a feudal superior and his vassal; the word is used as a substantive of the feudal superior, more usually in this sense, however, in the form "liege lord," and also of the vassals, his "lieges." Hence the word is often used of the loyal subjects of a sovereign, with no reference to feudal ties. It appears that _ligeitas_ or _ligentia_, the medieval Latin term for this relationship, was restricted to a particular form of homage. According to N. Broussel (_Nouvel examen de l'usage général des fiefs en France_, 1727) the homage of a "liege" was a stronger form of the ordinary homage, the especial distinction being that while the ordinary vassal only undertook forty days' military service, the liege promised to serve as long as the war might last, in which his superior was engaged (cf. Ducange, _Glossarium_, s.v. "_Ligius_").

The etymology of the word has been much discussed. It comes into English through the O. Fr. _lige_ or _liege_, Med. Lat. _ligius_. This was early connected with the Lat. _ligatus_, bound, _ligare_, to bind, from the sense of the obligation of the vassal to his lord, but this has been generally abandoned. Broussel takes the Med. Lat. _liga_, i.e., _foedus_, _confederatio_, the English "league," as the origin. Ducange connects it with the word _lities_, which appears in a gloss of the Salic law, and is defined as a _scriptitius_, _servus glebae_. The more usually accepted derivation is now from the Old High Ger. _ledic_, or _ledig_, meaning "free" (Mod. Ger. _ledig_ means unoccupied, _vacuus_). This is confirmed by the occurrence in a charter of Otto of Benthem, 1253, of a word "ledigh-man" (quoted in Ducange, _Glossarium_, s.v.), _Proinde affecti sumus ligius homo, quod Teutonice dictur Ledighman_. Skeat, in explaining the application of "free" to such a relationship as that subsisting between a feudal superior and his vassal, says "'a _liege_ lord' seems to have been the lord of a free band; and his _lieges_, though serving under him, were privileged men, free from all other obligations; their name being due to their _freedom_, not to their service" (_Etym. Dict._, ed. 1898). A. Luchaire (_Manuel des institutions françaises_, 1892, p. 189, n. 1) considers it difficult to call a man "free" who is under a strict obligation to another; further that the "liege" was not free from all obligation to a third party, for the charters prove without doubt that the "liege men" owed duty to more than one lord.

LIEGNITZ, a town in Germany, in the Prussian province of Silesia, picturesquely situated on the Katzbach, just above its junction with the Schwarzwasser, and 40 m. W.N.W, of Breslau, on the main line of railway to Berlin via Sommerfeld. Pop. (1885) 43,347, (1905) 59,710. It consists of an old town, surrounded by pleasant, shady promenades, and several well-built suburbs. The most prominent building is the palace, formerly the residence of the dukes of Liegnitz, rebuilt after a fire in 1835 and now used as the administrative offices of the district. The Ritter Akademie, founded by the emperor Joseph I. in 1708 for the education of the young Silesian nobles, was reconstructed as a gymnasium in 1810. The Roman Catholic church of St John, with two fine towers, contains the burial vault of the dukes. The principal Lutheran church, that of SS. Peter and Paul (restored in 1892-1894), dates from the 14th century. The manufactures are considerable, the chief articles made being cloth, wool, leather, tobacco, pianos and machinery. Its trade in grain and its cattle-markets are likewise important. The large market gardens in the suburbs grow vegetables of considerable annual value.

Liegnitz is first mentioned in an historical document in the year 1004. In 1163 it became the seat of the dukes of Liegnitz, who greatly improved and enlarged it. The dukes were members of the illustrious Piast family, which gave many kings to Poland. During the Thirty Years' War Liegnitz was taken by the Swedes, but was soon recaptured by the Imperialists. The Saxon army also defeated the imperial troops near Liegnitz in 1634. On the death of the last duke of Liegnitz in 1675, the duchy came into the possession of the Empire, which retained it until the Prussian conquest of Silesia in 1742. On the 15th of August 1760 Frederick the Great gained a decisive victory near Liegnitz over the Austrians, and in August 1813 Blücher defeated the French in the neighbourhood at the battle of the Katzbach. During the 19th century Liegnitz rapidly increased in population and prosperity. In 1906 the German autumn manoeuvres were held over the terrain formerly the scene of the great battles already mentioned.

See Schuchard, _Die Stadt Liegnitz_ (Berlin, 1868); Sammter and
Kraffert, _Chronik von Liegnitz_ (Liegnitz, 1861-1873); Jander,
_Liegnitz in seinem Entwickelungsgange_ (Liegnitz, 1905); and _Führer
für Liegnitz und seine Umgebung_ (Liegnitz, 1897); and the
_Urkundenbuch der Stadt Liegnitz bis 1455_, edited by Schirrmacher
(Liegnitz, 1866).

LIEN, in law. The word _lien_ is literally the French for a band, cord or chain, and keeping in mind that meaning we see in what respect it differs from a pledge on the one hand and a mortgage on the other. It is the bond which attaches a creditor's right to a debtor's property, but which gives no right _ad rem_, i.e. to property in the thing; if the property is in the possession of the creditor he may retain it, but in the absence of statute he cannot sell to recover what is due to him without the ordinary legal process against the debtor; and if it is not in possession, the law would indeed assist him to seize the property, and will hold it for him, and enable him to sell it in due course and pay himself out of the proceeds, but does not give him the property itself. It is difficult to say at what period the term lien made its appearance in English law; it probably came from more than one source. In fact, it was used as a convenient phrase for any right against the owner of property in regard to the property not specially defined by other better recognized species of title.

The possessory lien of a tradesman for work done on the thing, of a carrier for his hire, and of an innkeeper for his bill, would seem to be an inherent right which must have been in existence from the dawn, or before the dawn, of civilization. Probably the man who made or repaired weapons in the Stone Age was careful not to deliver them until he received what was stipulated for, but it is also probable that the term itself resulted from the infusion of the civil law of Rome into the common law of England which the Norman Conquest brought about, and that it represents the "tacit pledge" of the civil law. As might be expected, so far as the possessory lien is concerned the common law and civil law, and probably the laws of all countries, whether civilized or not, coincide; but there are many differences with respect to other species of lien. For instance, by the common law--in this respect a legacy of the feudal system--a landlord has a lien over his tenant's furniture and effects for rent due, which can be enforced without the assistance of the law simply by the landlord taking possession, personally or by his agent, and selling enough to satisfy his claim; whereas the maritime lien is more distinctly the product of the civil law, and is only found and used in admiralty proceedings, the high court of admiralty having been founded upon the civil law, and still (except so far as restrained by the common-law courts prior to the amalgamation and co-ordination of the various courts by the Judicature Acts, and as affected by statute law) acting upon it. The peculiar effects of this maritime lien are discussed below. There is also a class of liens, usually called equitable liens (e.g. that of an unpaid vendor of real property over the property sold), which are akin to the nature of the civil law rather than of the common law. The word lien does not frequently occur in statute law, but it is found in the extension of the common-law "carriers' or shipowners' lien" in the Merchant Shipping Act 1894; in the definition, extension and limitation of the vendor's lien; in the Factors Act 1877, and the Sale of Goods Act 1893; in granting a maritime lien to a shipmaster for his wages and disbursements, and in regulating that of the seamen in the Merchant Shipping Act 1894; and in the equity jurisdiction of the county courts 1888.

_Common-Law Liens._--These may be either particular, i.e. a right over one or more specified articles for a particular debt, or general, i.e. for all debts owing to the creditor by the debtor.

The requisites for a particular lien are, firstly, that the creditor should be in possession of the article; secondly, that the debt should be incurred with reference to the article; and thirdly, that the amount of the debt should be certain. It may be created by express contract, by implied contract (such as the usage of a particular trade or business), or as a consequence of the legal relation existing between the parties. As an example of the first, a shipowner at common law has a lien on the cargo for the freight; but though the shipper agrees to pay dead freight in addition, i.e. to pay freight on any space in the ship which he fails to occupy with his cargo, the shipowner has no lien on the cargo for such dead freight except by express agreement. The most usual form of the second is that which is termed a possessory lien--the right a ship-repairer has to retain a ship in his yard till he is paid for the repairs executed upon her,[1] and the right a cobbler has to retain a pair of shoes till he is paid for the repairs done to them. But this lien is only in respect of the work done on, and consequent benefit received by, the subject of the lien. Hence an agistor of cattle has no lien at common law upon them for the value of the pasturage consumed, though he may have one by agreement; nor a conveyancer upon deeds which he has not drawn, but which are in his possession for reference. The most common example of the third is that of a carrier, who is bound by law to carry for all persons, and has, therefore, a lien for the price of the carriage on the goods carried. It has been held that even if the goods are stolen, and entrusted to the carrier by the thief, the carrier can hold them for the price of the carriage against the rightful owner. Of the same nature is the common-law lien of an innkeeper on the baggage of his customer for the amount of his account, he being under a legal obligation to entertain travellers generally. Another instance of the same class is where a person has obtained possession of certain things over which he claims to hold a lien in the exercise of a legal right. For example, when a lord of a manor has seized cattle as estrays, he has a lien upon them for the expense of their keep as against the real owner; but the holder's claim must be specific, otherwise a general tender of compensation releases the lien.

A general lien is a right of a creditor to retain property, not merely for charges relating to it specifically, but for debts due on a general account. This not being a common-law right, is viewed by the English courts with the greatest jealousy, and to be enforced must be strictly proved. This can be done by proof either of an express or implied contract or of a general usage of trade. The first of these is established by the ordinary methods or by previous dealings between the parties on such terms; the second is recognized in certain businesses; it would probably be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to extend it at the present time to any other trades. When, however, a lien by general usage has once been judicially established, it becomes part of the Law Merchant, and the courts are bound to recognize and enforce it. The best known and most important instance is the right of a solicitor to retain papers in his hands belonging to his client until his account is settled. The solicitor's lien, though probably more commonly enforced than any other, is of no great antiquity in English law, the earliest reported case of it being in the reign of James II.; but it is now of a twofold nature. In the first place there is the retaining lien. This is similar in kind to other possessory liens, but of a general nature attaching to all papers of the client, and even to his money, up to the amount of the solicitor's bill, in the hands of the solicitor in the ordinary course of business. There are certain exceptions which seem to have crept in for the same reason as the solicitor's lien itself, i.e. general convenience of litigation; such exceptions are the will of the client after his decease, and proceedings in bankruptcy. In this latter case the actual possessory lien is given up, the solicitor's interests and priorities being protected by the courts, and it may be said that the giving up the papers is really only a means of enforcing the lien they give in the bankruptcy proceedings. In the second place there is what is called a charging lien--more correctly classed under the head of equitable lien, since it does not require possession, but is a lien the solicitor holds over property recovered or preserved for his client. He had the lien on an order by the court upon a fund in court by the common law, but as to property generally it was only given by 23 & 24 Vict. c. 127, § 28; and it has been held to attach to property recovered in a probate action (_ex parte Tweed_, C.A. 1899, 2 Q.B. 167). A banker's lien is the right of a banker to retain securities belonging to his customer for money due on a general balance. Other general liens, judicially established, are those of wharfingers, brokers and factors (which are in their nature akin to those of solicitors and bankers), and of calico printers, packers of goods, fullers (at all events at Exeter), dyers and millers; but in all these special trades it is probable that the true reason is that the account due was for one continuous transaction. The calico would come to be printed, the goods to be packed, the cloth to be bleached, the silk to be dyed, and the corn to be ground, in separate parcels, and at different times, but all as one undertaking; and they are therefore, though spoken of as instances of general lien, only adaptations by the courts of the doctrine of particular lien to special peculiarities of business. In none of these cases would the lien exist, in the absence of special agreement, for other matters of account, such as money lent or goods sold.

_Equitable Liens._--"Where equity has jurisdiction to enforce rights and obligations growing out of an executory contract," e.g. in a suit for specific performance, "this equitable theory of remedies cannot be carried out unless the notion is admitted that the contract creates some right or interest in or over specific property, which the decree of the court can lay hold of, and by means of which the equitable relief can be made efficient. The doctrine of equitable liens supplies this necessary element; and it was introduced for the sole purpose of furnishing a ground for these specific remedies which equity confers, operating upon particular identified property instead of the general pecuniary recoveries granted by courts of common law. It follows, therefore, that in a large class of executory contracts express and implied, which the common law regards as creating no property, right nor interest analogous to property, but only a mere personal right to obligation, equity recognizes in addition to the personal obligation a particular right over the thing with which the contract deals, which it calls a _lien_, and which though not property is analogous to property, and by means of which the plaintiff is enabled to follow the identical thing and to enforce the defendant's obligation by a remedy which operates directly on the thing. The theory of equitable liens has its ultimate foundation, therefore, in contracts express or implied which either deal or in some manner relate to specific property, such as a tract of land, particular chattels or securities, a certain fund and the like. It is necessary to divest oneself of the purely legal notion concerning the effects of such contracts, and to recognize the fact that equity regards them as creating a charge upon, or hypothecation of, the specific thing, by means of which the personal obligation arising from the agreement may be more effectively enforced than by a mere pecuniary recovery at law" (Pomeroy, 2 Eq. Jur. 232).

This description from an American text-book seems to give at once the fullest and most concise definition and description of an equitable lien. It differs essentially from a common-law lien, inasmuch as in the latter possession or occupation is as a rule necessary, whereas in the equitable lien the person claiming the lien is seldom in possession or occupation of the property, its object being to obtain the possession wholly or partially. A special instance of such a lien is that claimed by a publisher over the copyright of a book which he has agreed to publish on terms which are not complied with--for example, the author attempting to get the book published elsewhere. It cannot perhaps be said that this has been absolutely decided to exist, but a strong opinion of the English court of exchequer towards the close of the 18th century was expressed in its favour (_Brook_ v. _Wentworth_, 3 Anstruther 881). Other instances are the charging lien of a solicitor, and the lien of a person on improvements effected by him on the property of another who "lies by" and allows the work to be done before claiming the property. So also of a trustee for expenses lawfully incurred about the trust property. The power of a limited liability company to create a lien upon its own shares was in 1901 established (_Allen_ v. _Gold Reefs, &c._, C.A. 1900, 1 Ch. 656).

_Maritime Liens._--Maritime lien differs from all the others yet considered, in its more elastic nature. Where a maritime lien has once attached to property--and it may and generally does attach without possession--it will continue to attach, unless lost by laches, so long as the thing to which it attaches exists, notwithstanding changes in the possession of and property in the thing, and notwithstanding that the new possessor or owner may be entirely ignorant of its existence; and even if enforced it leaves the owner's personal liability for any balance unrealized intact (the "_Gemma_," 1899, P. 285). So far as England is concerned, it must be borne in mind that the courts of admiralty were conducted in accordance with the principles of civil law, and in that law both the pledge with possession and the hypothecation without possession were well recognized. The extreme convenience of such a right as the latter with regard to such essentially movable chattels as ships is apparent. Strictly speaking, a maritime lien is confined to cases arising in those matters over which the courts of admiralty had original jurisdiction, viz. collisions at sea, seamen's wages, salvage and bottomry, in all of which cases the appropriate remedy is a proceeding _in rem_ in the admiralty court. In the first of these--collisions at sea--if there were no maritime lien there would frequently be no remedy at all. When two ships have collided at sea it may well be that the innocent ship knows neither the name nor the nationality of the wrongdoer, and the vessel may escape with slight damage and not have to make a port of refuge in the neighbourhood. Months afterwards it is ascertained that she was a foreign ship, and in the interval she has changed owners. Then, were it not a fact that a maritime lien invisible to the wrongdoer nevertheless attaches itself to his ship at the moment of collision, and continues to attach, the unfortunate owner of the innocent ship would have no remedy, except the doubtful one of pursuing the former owner of the wrong-doing vessel in his own country in a personal action where such proceedings are allowed--which is by no means the case in all foreign countries. The same reasons apply, though not possibly with quite the same force, to the other classes of cases mentioned.

Between 1840 and 1873 the jurisdiction of the admiralty court was largely extended. At the latter date it was merged in the probate, divorce and admiralty division of the High Court of Justice. Since the merger questions have arisen as to how far the enlargement of jurisdiction has extended the principle of maritime lien. An interesting article on this subject by J. Mansfield, barrister-at-law, will be found in the _Law Quarterly Review_, vol. iv., October 1888. It must be sufficient to state here that where legislation has extended the already existing jurisdiction to which a maritime lien pertained, the maritime lien is extended to the subject matter, but that where a new jurisdiction is given, or where a jurisdiction formerly existing without a maritime lien is extended, no maritime lien is given, though even then the extended jurisdiction can be enforced by proceedings _in rem_. Of the first class of extended jurisdictions are collisions, salvage and seamen's wages. Prior to 1840 the court of admiralty only had jurisdiction over these when occurring or earned on the high seas. The jurisdiction, and with it the maritime lien, is extended to places within the body of a county in collision or salvage; and as to seamen's wages, whereas they were dependent on the earning of freight, they are now free from any such limitation; and also, whereas the remedy _in rem_ was limited to seamen's wages not earned under a special contract, it is now extended to all seamen's wages, and also to a master's wages and disbursements, and the maritime lien covers all these. The new jurisdiction given over claims for damage to cargo carried into any port in England or Wales, and on appeal from the county courts over all claims for damage to cargo under £300, though it may be prosecuted by proceedings _in rem_, i.e. by arrest of the ship, yet confers no maritime lien; and so also in the case of claims by material men (builders and fitters-out of ships) and for necessaries. Even though in the latter case the admiralty court had jurisdiction previously to 1840 where the necessaries were supplied on the high seas, yet as it could not be shown that such jurisdiction had ever been held to confer a maritime lien, no such lien is given. Even now there is much doubt as to whether towage confers a maritime lien or not, the services rendered being pursuant to contract, and frequently to a contract made verbally or in writing on the high seas, and being rendered also to a great extent on the high seas. In these cases and to that extent the high court of admiralty would have had original jurisdiction. But prior to 1840 towage, as now rendered by steam tugs expressly employed for the service, was practically unknown, and therefore there was no established catena of precedent to show the exercise of a maritime lien. It may be argued on the one hand that towage is only a modified form of salvage, and therefore entitled to a maritime lien, and on the other that it is only a form of necessary power supplied like a new sail or mast to a ship to enable her to complete her voyage expeditiously, and therefore of the nature of necessaries, and as such not entitled to a maritime lien. The matter is not of academical interest only, for though in the case of an inward-bound ship the tug owner can make use of his statutory right of proceeding _in rem_, and so obtain much of the benefit of a maritime lien, yet in the case of an outward-bound ship, if she once gets away without payment, and the agent or other authorized person refuses or is unable to pay, the tug owner's claim may, on the return of the ship to a British port, be met by an allegation of a change of ownership, which defeats his right of proceeding at all if he has no maritime lien; whereas if he has a maritime lien he can still proceed against the ship and recover his claim, if he has not been guilty of laches.

A convenient division of the special liens other than possessory on
ships may be made by classifying them as maritime, statutory-maritime
or quasi-maritime, and statutory. The first attach only in the case of
damage done by collision between ships on the high seas, salvage on
the high seas, bottomry and seamen's wages so far as freight has been
earned; the second attach in cases of damage by collision within the
body of a county, salvage within the body of a county, life salvage
everywhere, seamen's wages even if no freight has been earned,
master's wages and disbursements. These two classes continue to attach
notwithstanding a change of ownership without notice of the lien, if
there have been no laches in enforcing it (the "_Bold Buccleuch_,"
1852, 7 Moo. P.C. 267; the "_Kong Magnus_," 1891, P. 223). The third
class, which only give a right to proceed _in rem_, i.e. against the
ship itself, attach, so long as there is no _bona fide_ change of
ownership, without citing the owners, in all cases of claims for
damage to ship and of claims for damage to cargo where no owner is
domiciled in England or Wales. Irrespective of this limitation, they
attach in all cases not only of damage to cargo, but also of breaches
of contract to carry where the damage does not exceed £300, when the
suit must be commenced in a county court having admiralty
jurisdiction; and in cases of claims for necessaries supplied
elsewhere than in the ship's home port, for wages earned even under a
special contract by masters and mariners, and of claims for towage. In
all three classes the lien also exists over cargo where the suit from
its nature extends to it, as in salvage and in some cases of bottomry
or respondentia, and in cases where proceedings are taken against
cargo by the shipowner for a breach of contract (cargo _ex_ "_Argos_"
and the "_Hewsons_," 1873, L.R. 5 P.C. 134; the "_Alina_," 1880, 5 Ex.
D. 227).

Elsewhere than in England, and those countries such as the United
States which have adopted her jurisprudence in maritime matters
generally, the doctrine of maritime lien, or that which is substituted
for it, is very differently treated. Speaking generally, those states
which have adopted the Napoleonic codes or modifications of
them--France, Italy, Spain, Holland, Portugal, Belgium, Greece,
Turkey, and to some extent Russia--have instead of a maritime lien the
civil-law principle of privileged debts. Amongst these in all cases
are found claims for salvage, wages, bottomry under certain
restrictions, and necessaries. Each of these has a privileged claim
against the ship, and in some cases against freight and cargo as well,
but it is a matter of very great importance that, except in Belgium, a
claim for collision damage (which as we have seen confers a maritime
lien, and one of a very high order, in Great Britain) confers no
privilege against the wrong-doing ship, whilst in all these countries
an owner can get rid of his personal liability by abandoning the ship
and freight to his creditor, and so, if the ship is sunk, escape all
liability whilst retaining any insurance there may be. This, indeed,
was at one time the law of Great Britain; the measure of damage was
limited by the value of the _res_; and in the United States at the
present time a shipowner can get rid of his liability for damage by
abandoning the ship and freight. A different rule prevails in Germany
and the Scandinavian states. There claims relating to the ship, unless
the owner has specially rendered himself liable, confer no personal
claim at all against him. The claim is limited _ab initio_ to ship and
freight, except in the case of seamen's wages, which do confer a
personal claim so far as they have been earned on a voyage or passage
completed prior to the loss of the ship. In all maritime states,
however, except Spain, a provisional arrest of the ship is allowed,
and thus between the privilege accorded to the debt and the power to
arrest till bail is given or the ship abandoned to creditors, a
condition of things analogous to the maritime lien is established;
especially as these claims when the proper legal steps have been taken
to render them valid--usually by endorsement on the ship's papers on
board, or by registration at her port of registry--attach to the ship
and follow her into the hands of a purchaser. They are in fact notice
to him of the incumbrance.

_Duration of Lien._--So long as the party claiming the lien at common law retains the property, the lien continues, notwithstanding the debt in respect of which it is claimed becoming barred by the Statute of Limitations (_Higgins_ v. _Scott_, 1831, 2 B. & Ald. 413). But if he takes proceedings at law to recover the debt, and on a sale of the goods to satisfy the judgment purchases them himself, he so alters the nature of the possession that he loses his lien (_Jacobs_ v. _Latour_, 5 Bing. 130). An equitable lien probably in all cases continues, provided the purchaser of the subject matter has notice of the lien at the time of his purchase. A maritime lien is in no respect subject to the Statute of Limitations, and continues in force notwithstanding a change in the ownership of the property without notice, and is only terminated when it has once attached, by laches on the part of the person claiming it (the "_Kong Magnus_," 1891, P. 223). There is an exception in the case of seamen's wages, where by 4 Anne c. 16 (_Stat. Rev._ 4 & 5 Anne c. 3) all suits for seamen's wages in the Admiralty must be brought within six years.

_Ranking of Maritime Liens._--There may be several claimants holding maritime and other liens on the same vessel. For example, a foreign vessel comes into collision by her own fault and is damaged and her cargo also; she is assisted into port by salvors and ultimately under a towage agreement, and put into the hands of a shipwright who does necessary repairs. The innocent party to the collision has a maritime lien for his damage, and the seamen for their wages; the cargo owner has a suit _in rem_ or a statutory lien for damage, and the shipwright a possessory lien for the value of his repairs, while the tugs certainly have a right _in rem_ and possibly a maritime lien also in the nature of salvage. The value of the property may be insufficient to pay all claims, and it becomes a matter of great consequence to settle whether any, and if so which, have priority over the others, or whether all rank alike and have to divide the proceeds of the property _pro ratâ_ amongst them. The following general rules apply: liens for benefits conferred rank against the fund in the inverse, and those for the reparation of damage sustained in the direct order of their attaching to the _res_; as between the two classes those last mentioned rank before those first mentioned of earlier date; as between liens of the same class and the same date, the first claimant has priority over others who have not taken action. The courts of admiralty, however, allow equitable considerations, and enter into the question of marshalling assets. For example, if one claimant has a lien on two funds, or an effective right of action in addition to his lien, and another claimant has only a lien upon one fund, the first claimant will be obliged to exhaust his second remedy before coming into competition with the second. As regards possessory liens, the shipwright takes the ship as she stands, i.e. with her incumbrances, and it appears that the lien for seaman's wages takes precedence of a solicitor's lien for costs, under a charging order made in pursuance of the Solicitors Act 1860, § 28.

Subject to equitable considerations, the true principle appears to be
that services rendered under an actual or implied contract, which
confer a maritime lien, make the holder of the lien in some sort a
proprietor of the vessel, and therefore liable for damage done by
her--hence the priority of the damage lien--but, directly it has
attached, benefits conferred on the property by enabling it to reach
port in safety benefit the holder of the damage lien in common with
all other prior holders of maritime liens. It is less easy to see why
of two damage liens the earlier should take precedence of the later,
except on the principle that the _res_ which came into collision the
second time is depreciated in value by the amount of the existing lien
upon her for the first collision, and where there was more than one
damage lien, and also liens for benefits conferred prior to the first
collision between the two collisions and subsequent to the second, the
court would have to make a special order to meet the peculiar
circumstances. The claim of a mortgagee naturally is deferred to all
maritime liens, whether they are for benefits conferred on the
property in which he is interested or for damage done by it, and also
for the same reason to the possessory lien of the shipwright, but both
the possessory lien of the shipwright and the claim of the mortgagee
take precedence over a claim for necessaries, which only confers a
statutory lien or a right to proceed _in rem_ in certain cases. In
other maritime states possessing codes of commercial law, the
privileged debts are all set out in order of priority in these codes,
though, as has been already pointed out, the lien for damage by
collision--the most important in English law--has no counterpart in
most of the foreign codes.

_Stoppage in Transitu._--This is a lien held by an unpaid vendor in certain cases over goods sold after they have passed out of his actual possession. It has been much discussed whether it is an equitable or common-law right or lien. The fact appears to be that it has always been a part of the Law Merchant, which, properly speaking, is itself a part of the common law of England unless inconsistent with it. This particular right was, in the first instance, held by a court of equity to be equitable and not contrary to English law, and by that decision this particular part of the Law Merchant was approved and became part of the common law of England (see per Lord Abinger in _Gibson_ v. _Carruthers_, 8 M. & W., p. 336 et seq.). It may be described as a lien by the Law Merchant, decided by equity to be part of the common law, but in its nature partaking rather of the character of an equitable lien than one at common law. "It is a right which arises solely upon the insolvency of the buyer, and is based on the plain reason of justice and equity that one man's goods shall not be applied to the payment of another man's debts. If, therefore, after the vendor has delivered the goods out of his own possession and put them in the hands of a carrier for delivery to the buyer, he discovers that the buyer is insolvent, he may re-take the goods if he can before they reach the buyer's possession, and thus avoid having his property applied to paying debts due by the buyer to other people" (_Benjamin on Sales_, 2nd ed., 289). This right, though only recognized by English law in 1690, is highly favoured by the courts on account of its intrinsic justice, and extends to quasi-vendors, or persons in the same position, such as consignors who have bought on behalf of a principal and forwarded the goods. It is, however, defeated by a lawful transfer of the document of title to the goods by the vendor to a third person, who takes it _bonâ fide_ and for valuable consideration (Factors Act 1889; Sale of Goods Act 1893).

_Assignment or Transfer of Lien._--A lien being a personal right acquired in respect of personal services, it cannot, as a rule, be assigned or transferred; but here again there are exceptions. The personal representative of the holder of a possessory lien on his decease would probably in all cases be held entitled to it; and it has been held that the lien over a client's papers remains with the firm of solicitors notwithstanding changes in the constitution of the firm (_Gregory_ v. _Cresswell_, 14 L.J. Ch. 300). So also where a solicitor, having a lien on documents for his costs, assigned the debt to his bankers with the benefit of the lien, it was held that the bankers might enforce such lien in equity. But though a tradesman has a lien on the property of his customer for his charges for work done upon it, where the property is delivered to him by a servant acting within the scope of his employment, such lien cannot be transferred to the servant, even if he has paid the money himself; and the lien does not exist at all if the servant was acting without authority in delivering the goods, except where (as in the case of a common carrier) he is bound to receive the goods, in which case he retains his lien for the carriage against the rightful owner. Where, however, there is a lien on property of any sort not in possession, a person acquiring the property with knowledge of the lien takes it subject to such lien. This applies to equitable liens, and cannot apply to those common-law liens in which possession is necessary. It is, however, true that by statute certain common-law liens can be transferred, e.g. under the Merchant Shipping Act a master of a ship having a lien upon cargo for his freight can transfer the possession of the cargo to a wharfinger, and with it the lien (Merchant Shipping Act 1894, § 494). In this case, however, though the matter is simplified by the statute, if the wharfinger was constituted the agent or servant of the shipmaster, his possession would be the possession of the shipmaster, and there would be no real transfer of the lien; therefore the common-law doctrine is not altered, only greater facilities for the furtherance of trade are given by the statute, enabling the wharfinger to act in his own name without reference to his principal, who may be at the other side of the world. So also a lien may be retained, notwithstanding that the property passes out of possession, where it has to be deposited in some special place (such as the Custom-House) to comply with the law. Seamen cannot sell or assign or in any way part with their maritime lien for wages (Merchant Shipping Act 1894, § 156), but, nevertheless, with the sanction of the court, a person who pays seamen their wages is entitled to stand in their place and exercise their rights (the _Cornelia Henrietta_, 1866, L.R. 1 Ad. & Ec. 51).