116 FEDERAL REPORTER. �the suit in replevin, it cannot for a moment be admitted that the owner of a chattel can extinguish a lien thereon by any act of his own other than payment or tender of the sum due, wh et her by legal proceedings or otherwise; and the seizure by the marshal in the first two suits being in invitum, as against the libellant, cannot affect his rights. As to his own suit, if the court bas jurisdiction to enforce the lien against the vessel — a point hereinafter discussed — it can enforce it only by first acquiring Jurisdiction over the res by seizing it under its prooess ; and it would be quite absurd to suppose that its seizure by the marshal for this purpose ■would operate to extinguish the rights of the libellant. See The Acacia, 42 L. T. (N. S.) 264, 267. In the case of The Marion, ut supra, there was such a seizure by the marshal, but it was not suggested that it did or could, affect the libel- lant's rights. �6. Finally, it is objected that the court bas no jurisdiction to euforee sUch a common-law possessory lien ; that the lien is a bare right to hold tiil payment is made ; that it is-unac- companied by any right to faave the chattel sold- Itisargued that the nature of the right is such thafeno court will or can give effeot tp it by a sale of the property. �Aasuming that the right of the libellant was nothing more than the simple oommon-law possessory lien, and that it ia not enlarged or altered in its character bythe statute of New, York giving lienors a right to have the lien foreclosed by a sale of the chattel, the objection is not well taken. The power of a court of admiralty to order the sale of a vessel does not depend upon the right which the libellant may have to sell her, or cause her to be sold, to enforce his demand. It is a power inherent in the court — an essential part of its jurisdiction — to be exercised in the interest of commerce to ex- tricate the vessel and the parties from the impediments that stand in the way of her legitimate use as an instrument of commerce. See The Anna H. Smith, D. C. S. D. N. Y., Oct. 14, 1878. The precedent of The Marion, ut supra, is suf- ficient authority for the exercise of the jurisdiction in this «ase, even if the lien is a mere common-law lien or right to ��� �
