Tlô FEDERAL REPORTER. �been seen, held the vessel there involved to bo foreign, and, therefore, allowed the stevedore's claim. �While the circumstances of that case are very similar to those of the one before us, I cannot accept the conclusion that the vessel should be treated as foreign. She, clearly, is not. lier owner resides here, and here, therefore, is her home. That she has a foreign registry, and sails under a foreign flag, does not seern to be important. As against one who has been misled by such representations, the owner ■would not be allowed to assert the contrary. But here there has been no misleading. The residence of the owner in Pliil- adelphia was well understood, and that the home of the ves- sel was therefore here, ail persons dealing with him were bound to know. For necessary services and supplies fur- nisbed in foreign ports liens are allowed, on the presumption that credit is given the vessel, inasmuch as the owner, per- sonally, has none there. When at home the presumption is reversed, and the credit treated as given to the owner person- ally. What difference can it make, therefore, that the owner registers his vessel abroad and sails under foreign colora? These facts do not affect the presumption on which alone the question of lien depends. But, aside from the reasonableness of this view, the point has been so decided in this court after full consideration. In McCorker v. The Brig Tlwmas Walker, the owners, residing in Philadelphia, had their vessel regis- tered abroad, and sailed under foreign colors, to avoid danger from rebel cruisers during the late war, and a lien was claimed for services rendered here on the ground that she was foreign. The claim was disallowed by the district court, and, on appeal, by the circuit court also ; Judge Grier filing a written opin- ion, in which, while expressing sympathy with the plaintifïs, be held that the foreign registration, and the useof a foreign flag were unimportant, in view of the owner 's residence here, and the claimant's knowledge of this fact. �The exceptions filed by Baring Bros. & Go. must also be dismissed. The instrument they hold is not a bottomry bond. The informality it exhibits would be unimportant if it con- tained the essential elements of such a contract. But it does ����
