'fHE eIly. 0)1"
between him and them arises out of the fact that he is the owner of a boat upon which they claim.a lien for!'labor. On that account he is entitled to contest the fact of the indebtedness, or to show that the lien given by the law thei-e'for has been waived or discharged, or failing in these to discharge the lien by the payment of whatever sum is found due the libellants, and thereby prevent the sale of the boat. ' The exception for insufficiency is disallowed, a.nd the exceptions for impertinence are allowed.
See The De 8met, ante, 483, and note.
l'HE CITY OF SALEM.
(District Court, D. Oregon.
March 4, 1882,)
DEADY, D. J. This s.u-it is hroughtby .Charles Brown against the city, of Salem to enforce a lien thereon for the sum of $60 for labor done in repairing her at the request of Steffen, the contractor. The: pleadings and circumstances are the same as the foregoing, and the same order will be therein·.
FEDERAL REPORTER. THE THAMES.
(District Court, 8. D. New York. December 23,1881.)
MARITIME LIEN-SERVICES IN PROCURING CHARTER.
A shipping broker has no lien on a vessel, in admiralty, for services in procuring a charter-party.
In Admiral ty. F. A. Wilcox, for libellants, cited 5 Ben. 63, 70, 71; 2 FED. REP. 722; 4 Ben. 864; 8 Chi. Leg. News, 401; 3 N. Y. Wkly. Dig. 425; 2 Low. 482; 17 Wall. 666; 1 Dill. 460; 2 Low. 173; 5 Ben. 74, 78. Michael H. Cardozo, for claimant, cited 1 Abb. Adm. 340, 490; Etting, Adm. 69, 74; 2 Olcott, 120; 3 Mason, 6; 3 Sumn. 144. (On general subject of maritime liens, see 21 Am. Law Reg. 1, 82; 16 Am. Law Rev. 193.-[REP.) BROWN, D. J. I am not prepared to assert jurisdiction in admiralty in this case. In the case of The Riga, L. R. 3 Ad. & Eccl. 516, the ultimate determination is not reported, and the question depended wholly upon the statute, (3 & 4 Viet.) In this country such juris. diction has never been asserted. In The Gustavia, Bl. & H. 189, shipping a crew was held like furnishing necessary supplies for a voyage. The distinction between preliminary services leading to a maritime contract and such contracts themselves have been affirmed in this country from the first, and not yet departed from. It furnishes a distinction capable of somewhat easy application. If it be broken down, I do not perceive any other dividing line for excluding from the admiralty many other sorts of claims which have a reference, more or less near or remote, to navigation and commerce. If the broker of a charter-party be admitted, the insurance broker must follow,-the drayman, the expressman, and all others who perform services having reference to a voyage either in contemplation or exe· cuted. In Merchan.t v. Lulan, upon a similar case, the libel was dismissed on execution (as I find on examination) on February 22, 1879, by Benedict, J., in the eastern district, and the same decision must bi made here. Libel dismissed, with costs.
See Ferris v. The Bark E. D. Jewett, 2 FED. REP. 111.