51. (1796.) Supplies to a foreign vessel in a neutral port will constitute a lien on the vessel, whereof a court of admiralty has jurisdiction. North & Vesey v. Brig Eagle, Bee, Adm. 78.

52. (1798.) Of three several sums advanced for repairs and outfit of this vessel, one only could attach as a sufficient lien to give jurisdiction to the admiralty; and that security having been changed, the libel was dismissed in toto. O'Hara et al. v. Ship Mary, Bee, Adm. 100.

53. (1800.) The contract for repairs being made on land, and the owners being represented on the spot by a consignee who has funds, a plea to the jurisdiction of the court of admiralty must avail. Pritchard & Co. v. Schooner Lady Horatia, Bee, Adm. 167.

54. (July, 1855.) A question of jurisdiction being a preliminary inquiry, it is proper that it should be brought to the consideration of the court at the earliest opportunity. Wick v. The Schooner Samuel Strong, Newb. Adm. 187.

55. The District Courts of the United States have a general admiralty jurisdiction in rem, in suits brought by material-men against foreign ships, and in cases of domestic ships where the local law gives a lien. Ib.

56. The act of the legislature of Ohio entitled "An act providing for the collection of claims against steamboats and other water crafts, and authorizing proceedings against them by name," passed Feb. 26, 1840, and the act explanatory thereof, passed Feb. 24, 1848, does not create a lien; it only affords a remedy. These statutes, being in derogation of the common law, should be construed strictly. Ib.

57. (1856.) When the general maritime law gives the mechanic or material-man a lien for labor and materials in the building of a vessel, the admiralty has jurisdiction to enforce it by a process in rem, even before the vessel is launched or employed in navigation. Parmlee v. The Propeller Charles Mears, Newb. Adm. 197.

58. Independent of the act of 1845, extending the jurisdiction of the District Courts upon the lakes, the maritime law has the same application to cases upon the lakes as it has to those upon tide waters, both as to jurisdiction and to forms of procedure and practice. Ib.

59. (Sept., 1856.) Under the Judiciary Act of 1789, the

courts of the United States have cognizance of all civil cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, exclusive of the state courts, except as to common-law remedy. Ashbrook v. The Steamer Golden Gate, Newb. Adm. 296.

60. The admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States in rem is exclusively in the United States courts. Ib.

61. There is no concurrent jurisdiction in rem in admiralty cases between the courts of the United States and of the several states. Ib.

62. Where, as in this case, a material-man has a lien upon a vessel under the general maritime law of the United States, he has a right to enforce that lien by a suit in the United States court, although the vessel may have been subsequently seized and sold under the Missouri act concerning boats and vessels. Ib.

63. Where a material man has no lien under the general maritime law, but has a lien under the state law, and the same law provides certain proceedings by which that lien may be divested, if those proceedings are had his lien is divested, and he cannot sue in the United States court. Ib.

64. (Sept., 1874.) By the law of England previous to the statute of 3 and 4 Vict., no lien existed for supplies furnished domestic vessels. The Champion, 1 Brown, 520.

65. Whether such a lien existed with respect to foreign vessels, or whether the court of admiralty had jurisdiction to enforce it, seems never to have been settled prior to the passage of the act of 3 & 4 Vict. This statute, was, however, simply declaratory of the maritime law with respect to the existence of the lien as it was prior to its passage, and vested jurisdiction to enforce it in the admiralty courts. Ib.

66. Want of jurisdiction to enforce a lien in any particular locality is not fatal to the existence of the lien. The lien exists by virtue of the general maritime law; it follows the ship wherever she goes, and may be enforced wherever there is jurisdiction to enforce it. Ib.

67. There is a lien in Canada for supplies furnished an American vessel, and a court of admiralty has power to enforce this lien. Ib.

In all suits for mariners' wages, the libellant may proceed against the ship, freight, and master, or against the ship and freight, or against the owner or the master alone in personam.

1. (Feb., 1825.) The District Court has not jurisdiction of a suit for wages earned on a voyage in a steam vessel, from Shippingport, in the state of Kentucky, up the river Missouri, and back again to the port of departure, as a cause of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. The Thomas Jefferson, 10 Wheat. 428.

2. The admiralty has no jurisdiction over contracts for the hire of seamen, except in cases where the service is substantially performed upon the sea, or upon waters within the ebb and flow of the tide. Ib.

3. But the jurisdiction exists, although the commencement or termination of the voyage is at some place beyond the reach of the tide. It is sufficient if the service is essentially a maritime service. Ib.

4. The act of 1790, ch. 29, for the government and regulation of seamen in the merchant service, confines the remedy in the District Courts, to such cases as ordinarily belong to the admiralty jurisdiction. Ib.

5. (Jan., 1831.) Over the subject of seamen's wages the admiralty has an undisputed jurisdiction in rem as well as in personam; and wherever the lien for wages exists and attaches upon the proceeds, it is the familiar practice of that court to exert its jurisdiction over them, by way of monition to the parties holding the proceeds. This is familiarly known in the cases of prize, and bottomry, and salvage, and is equally applicable to the case of wages. The lien will follow the ship and its proceeds into whose hands soever they may come by title or purchase from the owner. Sheppeard v. Taylor, 5 Pet. 675.

6. (Jan., 1837.) The jurisdiction of courts of admiralty is limited, in matters of contract, to those, and those only, which are maritime. Steamboat Orleans v. Phoebus, 11 Pet. 175.

7. The case of the Steamboat Jefferson, 10 Wheaton, 429, 6 Cond. Rep. 175, cited and approved. Ib.

8. (May, 1827.) A father is entitled to the services of his minor children, and he may sue in the admiralty for wages

earned by such children by maritime services. Plummer v. Webb, 4 Mason, 380.

9. A contract of a special nature is not cognizable in the admiralty merely because the consideration of the contract is maritime service. The whole contract must, in its essence, be maritime, or for compensation for maritime services. Ib.

10. (Feb., 1872.) Article 10 of the treaty between the United States and the King of Prussia, of May 1, 1828, (8 Stat. at Large, 378, 382,) provides, that the consuls, vice-consuls, and commercial agents of each party "shall have the right, as such, to sit as judges and arbitrators, in such differences as may arise between the captains and crews of the vessels belonging to the nation whose interests are committed to their charge, without the interference of the local authorities," subject to the right of the contending parties "to resort, on their return, to the judicial authority of their country," and to the right of the consuls, vice-consuls, or commercial agents to require the assistance of the local authorities, " to cause their decisions to be carried into effect or supported." The crew of a Prussian vessel sued her in rem, in admiralty, in the District Court, to recover wages alleged to be due to them. The master of the vessel answered, denying the debt, invoking the protection of said treaty, denying the jurisdiction of the court, and averring that the claim for wages had already been adjudicated by the Prussian consul at New York. The consul also protested formally to the court against the exercise of jurisdiction. The case was tried in the District Court, and it appeared that the consul had adjudicated on the claim for wages. The District Court decreed in favor of the libellants. Held, that the District Court had no jurisdiction of the case. Elwine Kreplin, 9 Blatchf. 438.

The

11. (Oct., 1852.) The exercise of admiralty jurisdiction in suits by foreign seamen for wages is matter of comity rather than of duty, and, generally speaking, is exercised only under such circumstances as might infer the presumption of a request from the foreign state; as, for example, where a voyage is ended or broken up, and the seamen discharged; or where there is strong reason to believe that there would be a failure of remedy, in case the mariners were compelled to await an opportunity of obtaining redress in their own courts. Gonzales v. Minor, 2 Wall. Jr. 348.

12. (April, 1859.) Where it appears from the evidence that the names of the seamen are used in the libel as claimants for wages, and that they had assigned their claims, and that the assignee was the sole party in interest, the libel in the names of the seamen will be dismissed. Logan v. Steamboat Eolian, 1 Bond, 267.

13. (Oct., 1868.) The assignee of seamen's claims for wages has no maritime lien for those claims, and can have no standing in a court of admiralty. Rusk v. Steamboat Freestone, 2 Bond, 235.

14. (June, 1877.) The remedy given to seamen by sections 4546, 4547 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, as preliminary to the filing of a libel for wages, is not exclusive, but cumulative merely. The Waverly, 7 Biss. 465.

15. A libel for seamen's wages may be filed, and process for the arrest of a vessel obtained, without resort to the preliminary proceedings authorized by said sections. Ib.

16. Those sections examined and construed in connection with sec. 6 of the act of 1790. Ib.

17. The common-law rule, that a statutory remedy which does not negative the remedy at common law is cumulative, is applicable to remedies under the maritime law.

Ib.

13. (Aug., 1874.) A court of admiralty will not decline jurisdiction of a suit by foreign seamen, against a foreign vessel, to recover wages, where it appears that the voyage has been completed or broken up, or the seamen have been discharged, by the wrongful act of the master. The Hermine, 3 Sawyer, 80.

19. Semble, that the court will not decline jurisdiction, where it appears that the seamen have been discharged with their own consent before the expiration of the voyage, without the payment of wages already earned, or any agreement or understanding concerning them. Ib.

20. (Feb., 1842.) No statute prohibits the filing of any libel within ten days after the discharge of the cargo. Francis v. Bassett, 1 Sprague, 16.

21. (Oct., 1842.) The statute which precludes a seaman from having admiralty process for his wages against the vessel until ten days after the discharge of the cargo, does not affect his right to proceed in personam. The Commerce, 1 Sprague, 34.

22. (April, 1858.) The District Court may exercise juris