Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/537

522 FEBBBAL BBPOBTEB. (3) That construction oluims are not maritime contracts, and tho liens given therefor bythestate law must be postponed to liens on maritime contracta, which attach by either the general admiralty law or by the law of the state. A State law cannot confer jurisUiction on a court of admiralty by attacliiiig a lien to a non-maritime con tract. Admiralty will enforce only such statu liens as are given on maritime contracts, (4) That the claim of the owner.of the boat, for an allowance in lieu of a homestead, cannot prevail against liens by either the admiralty law or atate statuts. (5) That the lien given by section 5580, Rev. St. of Ohio, is a lien created by the express terms of the slatute, and requires for its perfection none of the proceedings provided in case of raechanics' liens. (6) That borrowed money is to be placed on the same footing as the purpose for which it was borrowed. Where the latter is of a maritime character, and has a lien attached thereto, whether by the general or the local law, the money advanced to meet it has a lien of equal dignity. (7) That in the distribution of the f und now in court such claims as are mari- time in their nature and subject-matter, and for which the state law gives s lien,, including insurance, supplies and repairs fumished in the home port are placed on an equality with the liens given by the general admiralty law for foreign supplies and repairs. Following Baxter, 0. S., in Tha General Burneide, 3 Fbd. Rep. 233. (8) That' after paying the costs in this case the fund shall be distril)utBd as follows: (1) Seamen's wages ; (2) foreign and home supplies, repairs, in.furan,ce ; (3| building olaims ; (4) mortgage claims ; (5) claims for borrowed money to which no liens attach. In Admiralty. The facts in this case, briefly stafced, are as follows: The stearaboat Guid- ing Star was built in the sunimer of 1878 at the port of Cincinnati, entirely on credit, by Capt. W. B. Miller, who contiuued to be her sole owuer and nuis- ter up to the date of her seizure, in June, 1881. The claims filod against her are as follows: For foreign supplies and repairs, $17,393.33; for home sup- plies and repairs, $14,113.63; for insuranoe premlums, $3,080; for construc- tion claims, $14,684.95; mortgage, $6,000 ; borrowed money, $22,380.64; allow- ance in lieu of a homestead, $500. The borrowed money is classiflable as folio ws: $229 to pay seamen's wages ; $11,029.71 advanced towards building the boat; and $11,051.93 to meet the general indebtedness of the boat as the same accrued, including supplies, witges, insurance premiums, and payments on notes given for the building of the boat. Ail the notes, including those given on construction claims, were drawn up in the name of the boat and her owner. No dispute whatever existed as to the correctness of any of tiie claims. The total indebtedness of the boat at the time of her seizure was $76,652.52. The sum realized on her sale was $38,310, and the real q,uestiou for the court to decide was, how should the fund be distributed? Mnulton, Johnson e Levy and FF. H. Jones, for libellants and sun- dry intervenors. Lincoln, Stevens e Slattery, Perry a Jenny, C. K. Shunk, Follett, Heyjnan <& Dawsoii, and Yaple, Moos e Pattison, for other interven- ors.