But this vessel is a British vessel, and subject to British law. Un. der the circumstances, it is the duty of the court to administer and apply the British law exactly as it would be applied if the vessel were in an English court. The court, under the decision in The Riga, L. R. 3 Adm. & Ecc. 516, must hold that iusurance, expressly au· thorized by the owners, is a "necessary," within the English act defining the jurisdiction of the admiralty court, and that, under that act, it created a maritime lien upon the vessel. The claim for payment for the spars used in the original Qonstruction of the vessel must also be allowed, because the English admiralty would allow it as a lien upon the vessel. The act of 24 & 25 Viet. c. 10, merely restores to the English admiralty the general admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of which the common-law courts had deprived it. While the United States supreme court has held that under the ad. miralty j.urisdiction in this country there is no lien for materials furnished in the construction of a vessel, yet the general maritime law of the world gives such a lien, and the jurisdiction to enforce· it has been resto,red to the English admiralty. As the lien would be recognized and enforced against this vessel in an English court, it can, as between the parties here, be enforced in this court. A decree will therefore be entered for the whole amount of libelant's claim, with interest and costs.
THE MERRIMAC. l
(Distriet (Jourt, D. MassaehuseUs.
November 20, 1886.)
MARITIME LIENS-SEIZURE OF SEINE-BOAT AS ApPURTENANT TO MAOKEREL SOHOONER-USAGE-OBLIGATION TO TAKE NOTICE OF.
The seine-boat which always accompanies schooners engaged in the mackerel trade sometimes belongs to the owners of the vessel. but quite as frequently to others. In the latter event, it is sometimes hired by the crew or owners, from outside parties, for the season or trip. It draws a regular share in the catch. which goes to whomsoever furnishes it. When the boat and the vessel have a common ownership, the former, by usage, passes to the buyer of the latter, though it be not mentioned in the bill of sale. But it is only in· the event of common ownership that the former is regarded. as appurtenant to the latter. Held that, if the common ownership be divested by a sale, the subsequent hiring of the boat by the seller cannot serve to make the boat a part of the vessel, and liable to an attachment for the vessel's debts; that the new relation was in accordance with a usage of which the parties furnishing supplies were bound to take notice.
In Admiralty. Action in rem. Seizure of seine-boat of mackerel schooner at the instance of material-men. the furnishers of supplies to the schooner. Libels by T. L. Mayo & Co. and James P. Nye for repairs and supplies furnished the mackerel schooner Merrimac. A large seine·
lReported by Theodore M. Etting, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar.
,boat, 37 feet long and 7f feet wide, was seized by; the marshal as belonging to the sohooner.NoahMayo appeared by petition as olaimant of the seine-boat, alleging that it was not appurtenant to the sohooner, and not subject to the lien of the libelants. The only question in the oase was whether the seine-boat was appurtenant to the schooner. J.D. Dodge d; Sons, for intervenors. Frederick Ounningham, for libelants. Noah Mayo, for seine-boat.
NELSON, J. This oase was heard on the petition of Noah Mayo for the release from arrestment of a seine-boat seized by the marshal ona warrant of arrest, in a suit by material-men against the maokerel schooner Merrimao, her taokle, apparel, and furniture. The libelants claim to hold the boat under the seizure as appurtenant to the vessel, and as subject to their lien for the supplies furnished. A seine-boat, slloh as the one in question, always aooompanies a vessel when engaged in the mackerel fishery, and is indispensable for the prosecution of the business. As it is too large to be hoisted and carried on deck, it is usually towed astern of the vessel in proceeding to and from the fishing grounds, and is there used in carrying out and setting the seine. It sometimes belongs to the owner of the vessel, but is quite as frequently owned by the orew, or is hired for the season or trip from outside parties. It draws a regular share in the catch,-usually a sixth or seventh after the great general bill,-and this share goes to the parties furnishing the boat. If the boat belongs to the owner, it is considered as attached to the vessel, and passes by usage in a sale of the vessel, though not mentioned in the bill of sale. But it is regarded as appurtenant to the vessel only when it belongs to the owner of the vessel, and is used in connection with it in the manner stated. Suoh being the usage proved as to boats of this class, the libelants' lien never could have attached to this boat. When the supplies were furnished, the boat had beoome the property of the petitioner Mayo. lt had previously belonged to the owner of tbe vessel, but had been purohased from him by Mayo. By the sale it was separated from the vessel, and was no longer attaohed or appurtenant to it. Its subsequent use by the vessel, in proseouting its business, was under a. contract of hiring, by which Mayo was to be paid for its service. This did not have the effect to annex it again,-to make it a part of the .vessel. The libelants were bound by the usage to take notice of this new relation, and oan therefore have no lien on the boat for the supplies. Petition allowed.
'l'HEWATER WITCH'S CARGO.
THE ,WATER WITCH'S CARGO.
(District Court, D. Ma88achU8ettB. November 28,1888.)
SBnos'AND BmpPING-DuTY OF MASTER NOT TO TAD AVERAGE BOND AFTER ADJuSTMENT 'OF Loss.....:.FoR1rr· OF 'AVERAGE BOND.
The question whether tender of an average bond, .reciting that the owners claim that certain losses and e)i':penses had been incurred which might conto a delivery of stitute a general average, is sufficient to entitle the goods from the master, cannot be decided (there bemg no contention but that the losses andexpenslls made a case of general average) after the adjust· ment has been made, there being no obligation on the master then to accept any bond.