THE MAMIË. 821 �between those ports designed for other countries, was held entitled to the benefît of the limited liability act. Neither do the facts that a court of admira] ty would have jurisdiction over the vessel, nor that she is subjeot to the navigation and inspection laws of the United States, and bound to carry the ordinary lights of a steamer, have any material bearing upon this qiiestion. �There is also strong reason for holding that the Mamie falls within the exception of vessels "used in rivers." She was principally employed upon the Detroit river. I do not consider the fact of her annual trip to the Ohio islands in Lake Erie as material : it was wholly exceptional. She was not fitted for the lake trade, had not the requisite comple- ment of men, and would be powerless against the storms which sweep over these waters. Whether her excursions to the St. Clair flats can be considered as taking her out of the oatagory of river steamers, would depend upon the fact whether Lake St. Clair can be considered as ône of the great lakes, within the 6ase oî Moore v. The American Trrnisp. Co. 24 How. 1. My own impression is that it ought to be treated rather as an expansion of the river, whose source is Lake Huron, and whose mouth is at Lake Erie — an expansion practically of the same nature as Lake St. Peter in the St. Lawrence, and the Tappan Zee in the Hudson ; but as this question is not unlikely to anse in the future, I express no decided opinion upon the point. �Upon the best consideration I have been able to give this case, I have corne to the condltision that the owners of the Mamie are not entitled to' the foene&t of the limited liability act, and the petition is thereforei dismissed. �KoTB. See Jhre Long làand JS. 3. P. e F. T. Go. ante, 699. ����
