THE TWO MARYS. 925 �their own shares, at least, if their authority extended no further. In doing 80 they would give Hawkins the same possessory rights whieh they themselves had, and no more ; and they would thereby autliorize the court, through the medium of any appropriate legal prooeedings, to make as effective a Baie of their own shares for the purpose of satisfying the lien as they themselves might have made directly. The point was involved, though not discussed, in the case of The Mary E. Perew, 16 Blatchf. 58. Although a mere common-law lien is a riglit of detention only, and does not admit of any enforcement by means of a private sale, or by a suit in equity for that purpose, (Maclac. Shipp. 7; Tkames Iron-works, etc., v. Patent Derrick Co. 1 J. & H. 93; Terrell v. Schooner B. F. Woolsey, i Fed. Eep. 552, 558,) yet it has been held enforceable under the general powers of a court of admiraity, as well as under the enlarged remedy designed to be afforded under the atatute of this state passed May S, 1869, (Lawa of N. Y. 1869, c. 738, p. 1785.) The Marion, 1 Story, 68; The Bark Archer, 9 Ben. 455; The B. F. Woolsey, 7 Fed. Eep. 108, 116. �But even if it were otherwise, and if Hawkins had no means ot enforcing his possessory lien by sale through a suit in admiraity, that would not prevent his intervention as a lienor upon sueh a lien on a libel filed by another upon which the marshal had under process taken the vessel from his possession. Such possession, if lawfully held by Hawkins at the time the vessel was arrested by the marshal, this court, in enforcing the rights of the libellant, is bound to respect, by admitting him to present his claim and have it paid, if he shall be found legally entitled to payment, to the extent of the value of his employers' shares; just as it would do in the case of a mortgagee of one or more shares, who, though he could not directly sue in admi- raity, would be admitted, nevertheless, to intervene and set up his elaim upon the res when it was libelled at the suit of another. The Jenny Lind, 3 Blatchf. 513; The Island City, 1 Low. 375, 379; The Gustaf, 1 Lush. 506; The Old Concord, 1 Brown, Adm. 270; The St. Joseph, Id. 202; The Brlg Wexford, 7 Fed Eep. 674, 684. �There is nothing in the nature of the con tract between the libel- lant and Hawkins incompatible with the ordinary lien of a mechanic for the work done by him. There was no agreement that Hawkins should be paid in goods exclusively, although it is true that mutual dealings and credits between them arose to a considerable extent. In fceveral of the libellant's letters, where payment in money is re- ��� �
