Formerly, builders of ships, as well as those who repaired, equipped, or supplied them, were called material men; (f) and this somewhat peculiar phrase has been in use as a term of the law-merchant for some centuries. Now, however, the phrase is confined, perhaps in law, and certainly in practice, to those who repair the ship, or furnish her with supplies, or do any work about her necessary for her seaworthiness and complete equipment. (g) By the maritime law of Europe, and by the Roman civil law, material men have a lien on any ship which they repair or supply. (h) The reason of this is obvious. Ships are often at a distance from their owners when they need and have these repairs or supplies, and therefore persons who furnish them should have a demand against the ship itself, without being obliged to recur to the owners. There is also another reason; and it is that ships may be owned by persons who are unknown to the material men. For these two reasons, the civil law and the general maritime law gives to material men this lien upon all ships, without any distinction between foreign and domestic vessels. In this country, however, it would seem that the first reason only has any influence; for with us the maritime lien is limited to foreign vessels. (i) But in this respect, as in the general application of the law-merchant, our States are considered as foreign to each other. (j)

(f) Jacobsen's Sea Laws, 857, note; Sir Leoline Jenkins, as cited by Lord Stowell in The Neptune, 3 Hagg. Adm. 142.

(g) Thus, it has been held, that no lien exists by the maritime law for the building of a vessel. People's Ferry Co. v. Beers, 20 How. 393; Roach v. Chapman, 22 How. 129. See The Richard Busteed, Sprague, 441, for an able decision in favor of the jurisdiction in such a case.

(h) Dig. 14,1, 1; Ord. de la Mar. liv. 1, tit. 14, art. 16; The General Smith, 4 Wheat. 438; The Nestor, 1 Sumner, 73; The Young Mechanic, 2 Curtis, C. C. 404.

(i) In the case of a domestic vessel, by the maritime law as now settled in this country, the lien depends on possession. The General Smith, 4 Wheat. 438; The St. Jago de Cuba, 9 id. 409. But in the case of foreign ships, the lien does not depend on possession. The Jerusalem, 2 Gallis. 345; Zane v. The Brig President, 4 Wash. C. C. 453.

(j) Pratt v. Reed, 19 How. 359; The Brig Nestor, 1 Sumner, 73. This doctrine grew out of a dictum in The General 8mith, 4 Wheat. 438, but it may now be considered as settled. In Beach v. Sch. Native, U. S. D. C, N. T., it is said, on the authority of a remark in Pratt v. Reed, 19 How. 359, that as the master would have no power to give a bottomry bond where the vessel belonged to an adjoining State, and as the necessity which authorizes the, giving a bond differs from the necessity authorizing the imposition of a lien only in respect to the maritime interest, no lien could be imposed in such a case.

Persons employed about a vessel may have in fact either of three liens, or in some instances all of them, which, though quite distinct in their origin, and somewhat so in their operation, are sometimes confounded together. One of these is the common-law lien of a bailee. The second is the maritime lien of material men. And the third is the statutory lien of workmen and mechanics.

By the first, a builder of a ship belonging to another person, or any person making repairs upon a ship, if for this purpose he has possession of the ship, has a common-law lien upon her for his charges, and may retain his possession to enforce this lien. And this lien may be enforced in admiralty, so far as repairs are concerned. (k) But if possession of the ship is parted with, this lien is lost. (l)

The maritime lien of material men is widely extended in admiralty, and our admiralty courts claim and exercise a full jurisdiction over all claims and questions arising under this lien. They require, however, evidence that the supplies and repairs were obtained, and that they could not have been obtained upon the personal responsibilities of the owners, without security on the vessel; (m) although it is not necessary that the vessel should in terms be made liable for the payment. (n) Hence, although the vessel is in a foreign port, if the owners are present or have an agent present, ready to advance or pay for whatever may be necessary, there is no lien. (o) And although the general rule confines this lien to a foreign vessel, yet if a vessel is in her home port, and is there held out by her owners as a foreign ves-sel, * material men who have repaired or supplied her in that belief, will have a lien which admiralty will enforce. (p) The residence of the owners of the vessel, and not that of the furnisher, is to be looked to in determining whether the vessel is a domestic one or not. Therefore if the vessel is in her home port, no lien exists for the supplies there furnished, although the furnisher resides and does business in another State. (9)

(k) The General Smith, 4 Wheat. 438, per Story, J.; The Sch. Marion, 1 Story, 68; Peyroux v. Howard, 7 Pet. 324. If material men who repair a vessel, retain possession of her and claim a common-law lien for the repairs made, they cannot add to this charge the expense of keeping the vessel, since they keep her for their own benefit. Somes v. British Empire Shipping Co., H. of Lords, 2 Law Times (N. S.), 547.

(l) See cases supra, note (i).

(m) Pratt v. Reed, 19 How. 359 ; The Sarah Starr, Sprague, 453. See Beach v. Sch. Native, U. S. D. C, N. Y., cited supra, note (j).

(n) The Sea Lark, Sprague, 571.

(o) Boreal v. The Golden Rose, Bee, 131.

(p) The St. Jago de Cuba, 9 Wheat. 409. See also Musson v. Fales, 16 Mass.

332.

The third or statutory lien is of course defined and determined by the statutes of each State, and to these statutes we must refer. Some of the more important results of adjudications determined under them are as follows.