Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/860

 848 pbdebal bbpobtbb. �The Thames. {District Court, S. D. New York. December 23, 1881.) �1. Mamtimk Lien — Services m Procuring Chartbk. �A shipping broker bas no lien on a vessel, in admiralty, for services in pro- curing a charter-party. �In Admiralty. �F. A. Wikox, for libellants, cited 5 Ben. 63, 70, 71 ; 2 Fed. Eep. 722; 4 Ben. 864; 8 Chi. Leg. News, 401; 3 N. Y. Wkly. Dig. 425; 2 Low. 482; 17 Wall. 666; 1 Dill. 460; 2 Low. 173; 5 Ben. 74, 78. �Michael H. Cardozo, for claimant, cited 1 Abb. Adm. 340, 490; Etting, Adm. 69, 74; 2 Olcott, 120; 3 Mason, 6; 3 Sumn. 144. �(On general subject of maritime liens, see 21 Am. Law Reg. 1, 82; 16 Am. Law Eev. 193.— [Eep.) �Beown, D. J. I am not prepared to assert jurisdiotion in admiralty in this case. In the case of The Riga, L. R. 3 Ad. & Eocl. 516, the ultimate determination is not reported, and the question depended wholly upon the statuts, (3 & 4 Vict.) In this country sueh juris- diotion has never been asserted. In The Gustavia, Bl. & H. 189, shipping a crew was held like furnishing neeessary supplies for a voyage. The distinction between preliminary services leading to a maritime contract and sueh contracts themselves have been affirmed in this country from the first, and not yet departed from. It fur- nishes a distinction capable of somewhat easy application. If it be broken down, I do not perceive any other dividing Une for excluding from the admiralty many other sorts of claims which have a refer- ence, more or less near or remote, to navigation and commerce. If the broker of a charter-party be admitted, the insurance broker must follow, — the drayman, the expressman, and all others who perform services having reference to a voyage either in contemplation or exe- cuted. �In Merchant v. Lulan, upon a similar case, the libel was dismissed on execution (as I find on examination) on February 22, 1879, by Benedict, J., in the eastern district, and the same decision must ba made here. �Libel dismissed, with costs. �See Ferris v. The Bark B. D. Jewett, 2 Fed. Rbp. 111. ��� �