Opinion of the Court.

in a foreign port, a lien is given by the general maritime law, following the civil law, and may be enforced in admiralty. The General Smith, 4 Wheat. 438, 443; The St. Jago de Cuba, 9 Wheat. 409, 417; The Virgin, 8 Pet. 538, 550; The Laura, 19 How. 22; The Grapeshot, 9 Wall. 129; The Lulu, 10 Wall. 192; The Kalorama, 10 Wall. 204.

2d. For repairs or supplies in the home port of the vessel, no lien exists, or can be enforced in admiralty, under the general law, independently of local statute. The General Smith, and The St. Jago de Cuba, above cited; The Lottawanna, 21 Wall. 558; The Edith, 94 U. S. 518.

3d. Whenever the statute of a State gives a lien, to be enforced by process in rem against the vessel, for repairs or supplies in her home port, this lien, being similar to the lien arising in a foreign port under the general law, is in the nature of a maritime lien, and therefore may be enforced in admiralty in the courts of the United States. The Planter, 7 Pet. 324; The St. Lawrence, 1 Black, 522; The Lottawanna, 21 Wall. 558, 579, 580; Rule 12 in Admiralty, as amended in 1872, 13 Wall. xiv.

4th. This lien, in the nature of a maritime lien, and to be enforced by process in the nature of admiralty process, is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the United States, sitting in admiralty. The Moses Taylor, 4 Wall. 411; The Hine, 4 Wall. 555; The Belfast, 7 Wall. 624; The Lottawanna, 21 Wall. 558, 580; Johnson v. Chicago Elevator Co., 119 U. S. 388, 397.

The fundamental reasons on which these propositions rest may be summed up thus: The admiralty and maritime jurisdiction is conferred on the courts of the United States by the Constitution, and cannot be enlarged or restricted by the legis lation of a State. No State legislation, therefore, can bring within the admiralty jurisdiction of the national courts a subject not maritime in its nature. But when a right, maritime in its nature, and to be enforced by process in the nature of admiralty process, has been given by the statute of a State, the admiralty courts of the United States have jurisdiction, and exclusive jurisdiction, to enforce that right according to their

Opinion of the Court.

own rules of procedure. See, in addition to the cases above cited, The Orleans, 11 Pet. 175, 184; Ex parte McNiel, 13 Wall. 236, 243; The Corsair, 145 U. S. 335, 347.

The settled rules of jurisdiction and practice on this subject were stated by Mr. Justice Bradley in The Lottawanna as follows: "So long as Congress does not interpose to regulate the subject, the rights of material-men furnishing necessaries to a vessel in her home port may be regulated in each State by state legislation. State laws, it is true, cannot exclude the contract for furnishing such necessaries from the domain of admiralty jurisdiction, for it is a maritime contract, and they cannot alter the limits of that jurisdiction; nor can they confer it upon the state courts so as to enable them to proceed in rem for the enforcement of liens created by such state laws, for it is exclusively conferred upon the District Courts of the United States. They can only authorize the enforcement thereof by common law remedies, or such remedies as are equivalent thereto. But the District Courts of the United States, having jurisdiction of the contract as a maritime one, may enforce liens given for its security, even when created by the state laws.” 21 Wall. 580.

By the Revised Statutes of Illinois of 1874, c. 12, § 1, every sailing vessel, steamboat or other water craft of above five. tons burthen, used or intended to be used in navigating the waters of the State, or used in trade and commerce between ports and places within the State, or having her home port in the State, "shall be subject to a lien thereon" for all debts contracted by her owner or master on account of supplies and provisions furnished for her use, or of work done or services rendered on board of her "by any seaman, master or other employé thereof," or "of work done or materials furnished by mechanics, tradesmen or others, in or about the building. repairing, fitting, furnishing or equipping such craft," and also for sums due for wharfage, towage, or the like, or upon contracts of affreightment, and damages for injuries to persons or property. By §§ 3, 4, the lien may be enforced by a petition filed in a court of record in the county where the vessel is found, within five years, but cannot be enforced "as against

Opinion of the Court.

or to the prejudice of any other creditor, or subsequent incumbrancer or bona fide purchaser," unless the petition is filed within nine months after the debt accrues or becomes due. By $$ 5-8, upon the filing of the petition, and of a bond from the petitioner to the owner of the vessel to prosecute the suit with effect, or, in case of failure to do so, to pay all costs and damages caused to the owner or other persons interested in the vessel by the wrongful suing out of the attachment, a writ of attachment is to issue to the sheriff to seize and keep the vessel. By §§ 10, 11, notice is to be given to the owners in person, and by publication to all other persons interested, and they may intervene to protect their interests. By 15-17, the vessel may be delivered up to the owner, or to any other person interested, upon his giving bond, or making a deposit of money. By § 19, the owner and other claimants. are to file answers. By §§ 21-27, upon judgment for the petitioner, the vessel, if remaining in custody, is to be sold by the sheriff; and the proceeds (deducting certain costs) are to be applied, first, to the wages due to seamen, including the master, for certain periods, and then to all other claims, filed before the distribution, on which judgment has been rendered in favor of the claimant, and to any balance due to seamen ; and any remnant is to be applied, first, to all other liens enforceable under the statute before distribution; second, to all mortgages or other incumbrances of the vessel by the owner, "in proportion to the interest they cover and priority;" third, to judgments at law or decrees in chancery against the owner; and any surplus to the owner.

It thus appears that, for all supplies or provisions furnished for the use of a vessel, or for work done and materials furnished in repairing her, in her home port, the statute gives a lien upon the vessel, to be enforced by proceedings in rem, analogous to such proceedings in admiralty.

In the present case, the District Court has found and adjudged that the sums claimed by the appellants for supplies, repairs and services were due to them; and the Circuit Court of Appeals has stated in its certificate that for these supplies, repairs and services there was a lien upon the vessel under the

Opinion of the Court.

laws of the State of Illinois; and has certified to this court the single question "whether a claim arising upon a vessel mortgage is to be preferred to the claim for supplies and necessaries furnished to a vessel in its home port in the State of Illinois subsequently to the date of the recording of the mortgage."

It must be assumed, therefore, for the purpose of deciding this question, that all the claims of the appellants for supplies and repairs were contracted under such circumstances, that a lien upon the vessel for their payment existed under the statute of Illinois, and should be enforced in admiralty by the courts of the United States against the proceeds of the vessel, unless the mortgagees are entitled to priority in the distribution.

An ordinary mortgage of a vessel, whether made to secure the purchase money upon the sale thereof, or to raise money for general purposes, is not a maritime contract. A court of admiralty, therefore, has no jurisdiction of a libel to foreclose it, or to assert either title or right of possession under it. The John Jay, 17 How. 399; The Eclipse, 135 U. S. 599, 608. But it has jurisdiction, after a vessel has been sold by its order, and the proceeds have been paid into the registry, to pass upon the claim of the mortgagee, as of any other person, to the fund, and to determine the priority of the various claims, upon petitions such as were filed by the mortgagees and the material-men in this case. The Globe, 3 How. 568, 573; The Angelique, 19 How. 239; The Lottawanna, 21 Wall. 558, 582, 583; Rule 43 in Admiralty.

The appellees rely on section 4192 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, which substantially reënacts the act of July 29, 1850, c. 27, § 1, (9 Stat. 440,) and is as follows: "No bill of sale, mortgage, hypothecation or conveyance of any vessel, or part of any vessel, of the United States shall be valid against any person other than the grantor or mortgagor, his heirs and devisees, and persons having actual notice thereof; unless such bill of sale, mortgage, hypothecation or conveyance is recorded in the office of the collector of the customs where such vessel is registered or enrolled. The lien by bottomry on any vessel, created during her voyage, by a loan of money or

Opinion of the Court.

materials, necessary to repair or enable her to prosecute a voyage, shall not, however, lose its priority, or be in any way affected by the provisions of this section."

The appellees contend that no lien created by the legislature of a State can override a prior mortgage recorded under this act of Congress.

But that enactment is a mere registry act, intended to prevent mortgages and other conveyances of vessels from having any effect (which they might have had before) against persons other than the grantor or mortgagor, and those claiming under him, or having actual notice thereof, unless recorded as therein provided. White's Bank v. Smith, 7 Wall. 646; Aldrich v. Etna Co., 8 Wall. 491. It manifests no intention to confer upon the mortgagee any new right, or to make the mortgage a maritime contract, or the lien created thereby a maritime lien, or in any way to interfere with maritime contracts or liens, or with the jurisdiction and procedure in admiralty. The only mention of any other lien on the vessel is of a bottomry bond, in the latter part of the section, originally inserted in the form of a proviso, and with the obvious purpose of precluding the possibility of construing such a bond to be an hypothecation, within the meaning of the previous clause, and therefore required to be recorded. And, as was well observed in The William T. Graves, 14 Blatchford, 189, 195, by Judge Johnson: "If this proviso be construed to mean that such a lien only is out of the purview of the statute, and that all other liens are postponed to that of a mortgagee, then the claims of salvors, and all those having other strictly maritime liens, would be thus postponed, to the subversion of the whole principle upon which efficacy is given to such claims, and the overthrow of the best settled and most salutary principles of the maritime law. Indeed, any principle, upon which this statute can be expounded to give such a priority to a recorded mortgage, would also extend to bills of sale and other conveyances recorded under the same law, and thus practically overthrow the whole scheme of maritime law upon the subject of maritime liens."

In The Lottawanna, the mortgage was preferred to the