Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/381

 374 FEDERAL REPORTER. �tried by the district court. It gave a decree for the libellants for $60, and $5.79 interest, and $65.37 costs. The claim- ants have appealed to thia court. �The district judge, in his decision in this case, states, that the questions, first, whether a contract for wharfage is a maritime contract, and so within the jurisdiction of the admiralty, and, second, whether, by the maritime law of the United States, a lien upon the vessel arises out of such a con- tract, were set at rest by the determination of the supreme court in Ex parte Eastoii; that the case before that court was that of a domestic vessel ; that the libel elaimed a lien by the maritime law alone, without any reference to the statute of New York, or to any olaim or right based thereon ; that, from the pleadings, the petition, and the petitioner's brief before the supreme court, there was no room to doubt that the case was understood by that court to present the question, whether the contract of wharfage, by the maritime law of the United States, gives rise to a lien on the vessel ; that the question of a lien for wharfage by the maritime law upon a f oreign vessel was not the question presented by the case before that court ; that the question of a lien for wharfage by the maritime law; upon a domestic vessel was the question presented to that court for its decision ; that the opinion of that court declares the law to be, without exception, not only that the contract for wharfage is a maritime contract, but, also, that a mari- time lien arises in favor of the wharfinger against the vessel, for the payment of reasonable and customary charges for the use of his wharf; and that, therefore, the question is no longer open whether the rule applied to the demands of material-men against a domestic vessel is to be applied to demands for wharfage. �The review before given of the decision of the supreme iourt in Ex parte Easton shows that this court does not con- cur with the district court in its interpretation of that decis- ion. Having decided that there was, in this case, a mari- time lien, the district court did not consider the question as to whether there was a lien by the law of New York, as alleged in the libel, which the coiirt could and would enforce ����