112 FEDERAL REPORTER �the care and safety of the vessel. His men moored lier, hauled her on and off the railway, tended her Unes, and looked after her safety in bad weather. If the master and owner had remained, or kept the cook and mate there, for the purpose of retaining the possession or custody of the vessel, then the possession of the libellant would not prob- ably have been such as to give him a lien. But it is clear they were not there for any such purpose, nor did they assume in any way to retain the actual custody of the vessel. Their acts upon and about the vessel were alio intuitu — to help on and hasten the repairs, and lessen the expense. The circumstances of the case are very mueh like those of The Marion, ut supra, where similar possession by a ship- wright was held to be sufficient to give a common-law lien, The nature of the possession must be according to the nature of the object on which the work is done. A ship is an un- wieldly subject, and the possession of it cannot be exactly like that which a mechanic obtains of a horse or a watch; or, rather, the fact of possession is evidenced by different cir- cumstances and acts. In this case the evidence is satis- factory that the libellant had actual possession. �3. It is next objected that the libellant agreed to do the work on a credit of six or eight months without security. If this were so, of course there would be no lien. The agree- ment would be inconsistent with an intention to retain the vessel till libellant's bill was paid. On this point the evi- dence of what conversation took place between the parties is conflicting. The olaimant swears to a conversation im- porting some such agreement. The libellant positively denies it. If forced to determine this point on the relative credi- bility of the parties, I should find the alleged agreement not proved. There are, however, certain circumstances proved whioh are entitled to greater weight than testimony of con- versations. The conduct of the olaimant when the work was done, and payment of the bill demanded, shows clearly, I think, that he did not then understand that he was entitled to take the vessel away without payment of the libellant's bill, There being no other obstacle except the non-payment ��� �
