PETEIE P.STEi.M'iTOja OOA^ BIiOPF NO. 2. 483 �ally liable, jointly with the other ownerg. Gaa he then Buc- cessfully contest the right of his own oreditors to Ihis fund? Are they to be deprived by him of the security which thp Btatute gives them? To ask these questions is to answer them negatively. A court of admiralty, while not a court of general equity, yet acts upon equitable principles ; and surely it would be against ail equity to divert from the oreditors this fund and place it into the hands of the debtor, who pos- sibly may be insplvent. The commissioner, whose report is now before the court upon exceptions, was quite right in dis- allowing this claim. �2. The creditors of the boat claiming the fund are of two classes, viz. : First, those whose claims are for work done and materials fumished in the building of the Coal Bluff No. 2; and second, those whose claims are for supplies furnished the boat, or for repairs made to her. In the case of the former class of creditors, the commissioner made a distinction between claims for materials furnished for the huU of the boat and work thereon done before it was launched, and for materials fur- nished and work done after the huU was afloat. The latter he allowed, but the former he disallowed upon the ground that the contracta therefor were made and perf ormed on land. I cannot recognize this distinction as existing in the statute, or as hav- ing any foundation in reason. The fact is, even repairs are frequently made to a vessel when she is on land— hauled ashore for the purpose — of which we have an instance in the case of The Planter, 7 Peters, 324, where a libel in rem^ in admiralty, was sustained for repaire to the vessel at her home port, where the local law gave a lien. �Originally, the claimants for materials furnished and work done in the building of the Coal Bluff No. 2 filed intervening libels against the boat ; and thus the case stood when it was before the commissioner. But since the coming in of his report these creditors, by leave of court, bave filed petitions, under the forty-third admiralty rule, to be let in upon the proceeds of the vessel in the registry of the court, in accord- ance with the practice recognized in Schuchardt v. Babbidge, ����
