532 Opinion of the Court. as here, to the breach of a maritime contract. As Mr. Justice Stone said in Krauss Bros. Co. v. Dimon S. S. Corp., supra, at 124: '. . . Even under the common law form of action for money had and received there could be no recovery without proof of the breach of the contract involved in demanding the payment, and the basis of recovery there, as in admiralty, is the violation of some term of the contract of affreightment, whether by failure to carry or by exaction of freight which the contract did not authorize." The truth is that in a case such as the present one there is neither an actual promise to repay the passage moneys nor a second contract. The problem is to prevent unjust enrichment from a maritime contract. See Morrison, The Remedial Powers of the Admiralty, 43 Yale L. J. 1, 27 (1933). A court that prevents a maritime contract from being exploited in that way does not reach beyond the domain of maritime affairs. We conclude that, so long as the claim asserted arises out of a maritime contract, the admiralty court has jurisdiction over it. The philosophy of indebitatus assumpsit is, indeed, not wholly foreign to admiralty. Analogous conceptions of rights based on quasi-contract are found in admiralty. One who saves property at sea has the right to an award of salvage, regardless of any agreement between him and the owner. See Mason v. Ship Blaireau, 2 Cranch 240, 266; The Sabine, 101 U. S. 384, 390; 1 Benedict, supra, § 117 et seq. Likewise, where cargo is jettisoned, the owner becomes entitled to a contribution in general average from the owners of other cargo which was saved without the aid of any agreement. See Barnard v. Adams, 10 How. 270, 303-304; Star of Hope, 9 Wall. 203, 228-230; 1 Benedict, supra, § 98. Other examples could be given. See Chandler, Quasi Contractual Relief 362618 O-56-40 Opinion of the Court. 350 U.S. in Admiralty, 27 Mich. L. Rev. 23 (1928). Rights which admiralty recognizes as serving the ends of justice are often indistinguishable from ordinary quasi-contractual rights created to prevent unjust enrichment. How far the concept of quasi-contracts may be applied in admiralty it is unnecessary to decide. It is sufficient this day to hold that admiralty has jurisdiction, even where the libel reads like indebitatus assumpsit at common law, provided that the unjust enrichment arose as a result of the breach of a maritime contract. Such is the case here. The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for proceedings in conformity with this opinion. Reversed and remanded. Syllabus. INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CREDIT CORP. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK. No. 82. Argued January 17-18, 1956.-Decided April 9, 1956. New York State imposes a highway use tax, computed by the weightdistance principle, upon motor carriers operating heavy vehicles on the State's highways. The tax owed by a carrier is a statutory lien upon all motor vehicles operated by the carrier within the State, and the lien is paramount to all prior liens or encumbrances. Vendors of particular trucks, who sold them to the carrier under conditional sales agreements more than a year after the statute became effective, challenged application of the statutory tax lien, in some circumstances, as a deprivation of property without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. Held: 1. As applied to taxes based upon the carrier's operation of other trucks within the State, whether before or during the time that the carrier operated the particular trucks within the State, the State's priority of lien is constitutional. Pp. 538-548. 2. As applied to taxes assessed against the carrier after the vendors have repossessed the particular trucks, but which were based upon the carrier's operations on the State's highways before such repossession, the State's priority of lien is constitutional. Pp. 538-548. 308 N. Y. 731, 124 N. E. 2d 339, affirmed. John Lord O'Brian argued the cause for appellants. With him on the brief were Charles A. Horsky, Robert L. Randall and John T. De Graff. James O. Moore, Jr., Solicitor General of New York, argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief were Jacob K. Javits, Attorney General, Sidney Kelly, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, and Walter V. Ferris, Deputy Assistant Attorney General. Opinion of the Court. 350 U.S. MR. JUSTICE BURTON delivered the opinion of the Court. The State of New York imposes a highway use tax upon motor carriers operating heavy vehicles on its public highways. Many such vehicles are purchased and operated under conditional sales agreements, and certain conditional vendors here question the extent to which the State may subordinate the vendors' security interests to the State's lien for taxes owed by the carrier. The vendors question the constitutionality of any grant of priority to the State's lien, over their rights in particular trucks, insofar as the lien is made applicable to taxes based upon the carrier's operation of other trucks within the State, whether before, or during, the time that the carrier has operated the particular trucks within the State. The vendors object, likewise, to any priority for the lien as applied to taxes assessed against the carrier after the vendors have repossessed the particular trucks, even though the taxes are based upon the carrier's operations on the State's highways before such repossession.1 For the reasons hereafter stated, we sustain the State's priority in each instance. International Harvester Credit Corporation, a Delaware corporation, and Brockway Motor Company, Inc., a New York corporation, as plaintiffs (now appellants), with the members of the State Tax Commission of New York as defendants (now appellees), submitted this controversy to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Third Department, on stipulated facts, pursuant to § 546 of the Civil Practice Act of New York. Appel 1 We do not have before us the validity of the attempted subordination of a conditional vendor's security interest in a truck sold to and operated by a carrier where the tax is measured by any use of the highways by the carrier after the truck has been repossessed by its vendor. Such a claim was made in this case but it was abandoned by the State. 537 Opinion of the Court. lants sought a declaratory judgment that the liens asserted by the State were not superior to the conditional vendors' interests in certain trucks and that Article 21 of the Tax Law was unconstitutional, insofar as it prescribed the priorities to which they objected. Appellants also asked that the bonds filed by them to secure payment of the taxes be canceled and returned. With one judge not voting, the Appellate Division decided in favor of appellees, sustaining generally the State's liens and priorities.3 284 App. Div. 604, 132 N. Y. S. 2d 511. On appeal, taken as a matter of right, that judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals of New York, with one judge dissenting. 308 N. Y. 731, 124 N. E. 2d 339. On appeal to this Court, under 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (2), we noted probable jurisdiction. 350 U. S. 813. The stipulated facts may be summarized as follows: From January 1, 1952, through February 1954, Eastern Cartage and Leasing Co., Inc., here called the "carrier," was a domestic corporation owning at least 15 motor vehicles. As a motor carrier it operated these vehicles over the public highways of the State of New York subject to the highway use tax imposed by Article 21 of the Tax Law, supra. That tax was imposed upon the "carrier" or "owner," and those terms did not include 2 Article 21 of the Tax Law, effective October 1, 1951, imposed a tax for the privilege of operating on the highways of New York motor vehicles having a gross weight of over 18,000 pounds each. McKinney's N. Y. Laws, §§ 501 (2) and 503. The tax was computed on a graduated scale beginning at six mills per mile for vehicles of between 18,001 and 20,000 pounds. The scale rose to 35 mills for trucks weighing between 74,001 and 76,000 pounds, with an additional two mills per ton and fraction thereof above that weight. The tax was determined by multiplying the number of miles operated over the highways of the State by the rate for the appropriate weight group. Id., § 503. 3 The lien was not upheld as to any taxes which accrued after repossession of the trucks. |