MALSXEB V. HUMPHESTS. 635 �that, under a contract to build the cabin or the huU of a Bteamboat, and furnish the materials, the oontractor bas a lien by the act of 1858. The written contract in that case and the one here are substantially the same in ail essential particulars, except that the former related to the cabin of the boat, and the latter to the huU. I regard the case of The Dictator as authoritatively deciding that under such a con- tract as that of McCaskey & Kerr the contractors have a lien by the act of April 20, 1858. This is my own opinion upon the statute, independent of the above-quoted decision. �The exceptions to the commissioner's report filed by Mc- Caskey & Kerr and William Miller must be sustained, and those filed by John N. McCurdy and J. & E. Ackley over- ruled. �Let a decree be drawn in accordance with the viewa ex- pressed in this opinion. ���Malstkb and another v. Hdhphbbys and others. �{Circuit Court, D. Maa-yland. July 16, 1880.) �1. CoLiiiBioN— Launch— NEQLTaBNCB. — The launch of a ship is an extraor- dinary and unusual proceeding, and the builder is therefore required to take extraordinary care, and exercise the highest caution, to pre- vent damage to those who are navigating the harbor. �Facts of collision between a schooner and a launched ship reviewed in this case, and the builder held liable for negligence. �In Admiralty. Appeal from district court. �John H. Handy, for libellants. �Savage e Semmes and A. Sterling, Jr., for respondents. �The facts in this case are fuUy set out in the opinion of the district court, (filed October 22, 1879,) which is as follows : �Morbis, D. J. This is a collision case of a peculiar char- acter. As to the facts, there is but little, if any, dispute. It appears that on the afternoon of the first day of Jùly, 1879, ����
