Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/730

EOBBBTS V. BARK WINDERMERE. 723 �It is argued for the claimaut that the contract sued on 13 not a maritime contract, and that it cannot be distinguished in principle from the contract of the master with the steve- dore for unlading the ship, which, it is claimed, has been held not to be a maritime contract, giving a lien on the ship for its enforcement, or of which the admiralty has jurisdic- tion. �In the case of The Amstel, Bl. & H. 215, (1831,) the ques- tion, whether a stevedore has a lien on the vessel for his services, came before this court, and it was held by Judge Betts that the suit in rem could not be maintained. He says : "This action is resisted in the first place on the ground that the libellant has no lien upon the vessel, because his services as a stevedore were not in their nature maritime, and were really performed on land. It is to be remarked that the ser- vices consisted of nothing done to the vessel in her repair- ing and refitting, but of labor expended partly on board and partly on shore in discharging her cargo. This description of service has never yet been recognized as of a privileged order. It does not fall within the extensive list of debts privileged by the civil law, nor does it seem to be compre- hended -within the principle upon which a lien or privilege is allowed. A vessel is made chargeable with certain services because they are necessary for her preservation or useful employment. Under this head is embraced the compensa- tion of material men and others for labor done upon the vessel, or in her navigation, or in promoting the health or comfort of the ship's company on a voyage. The language of the civil law has direct reference to this description of service, and the French law, which gives a broader applica- tion to the privilege than has ever been yielded in England, does not extend it beyond those engaged in labors connected with the equipment or refitment of the vessel, either in re- spect to the vessel herself or her necessary stores, her crew, etc., or in services performed on her during her voyage. The American law has never gone beyond the doctrines recog- nized in the continental courts of Europe, and it seems to me that it would be a departure from the well-understood ����