THB TEBNTOK. 657 �and considerate, nor that the principal and only fault in his eonduct seems to have arisen from a desire to save for the ship at the expense of the libellant. Under the circumstances I think the libellant ought to recover at least $250, and a decree will be given against the ship and master acoordingly. ���The Tbbnton. {District Court, E. D. Michigan. November 29, I88O1.) �1, Admiealtt— Sale— Liens.— By the law of most, if not ail, civilizea �nations, the sale of a vessel by proceedings in rem, in a court of com- petent jurisdiction, extinguishes ail liens upon her, and vests a olear and indefeasible title in the purchaser. �2. Samb — Samb — Samb. — Hence, where an American vessel was sold by �the maritime court of Ontario, the sale was held to discharge a lien for necessaries furnished in Cleveland, Ohio, notwithstanding the court had declined to eoforce such lien against the vessel for the want of jurisdiction. �8. Bamb — Same — Same. — In such cases the lienholder is remitted to his remedy against the proceeds of sale, and it seems that his claim will be allowed wherever a lien exista by the law of the place where the coutract is made. �In Admiralty. �This -was a libel for supplies and materials furnished at Cleveland, the home port of the vessel, in 1876, for which a lien was claimed under the law of the state of Ohio. The present owner of the schooner, appearing as olaimant, pleaded in substance that in July, 1878, the libellants caused the ves- sel to be seized at Toronto, Ontario, by virtue of a warrant issued by the maritime court of Ontario, upon a petition filed by the libellants for the same cause of action for which their libel was filed in this court; that in August, 1878, one Michael Gallagher intervened with a claim for wages as watchman and ship-keeper from December 1, 1877, tô June 27, 1878; that about the same time one William McAllister also intervened with a claim for wagea as mate ftoin April 4 �v.4,no.7 — 42 ����
