112 FEDERAL SEPOBTEB. �The libellant avers that credit was given to the vessel. The libellant, though examined as a witness, did not testify upon ■whose oï what credit he relied. Under the circumstances, I think that the evidence shows that he did not rely upon the credit of the vessel, and that he bas no lien on her. It is unnecesisary, therefore, to consider the other questions that bave been raised. �Libel dismissed, with costs. ���White and others v. Thb Stbameb Cynthia {District Court, E. D. New York. April 15, 1880.) �Admikalty — LiBN OF Matebial-Mbn bt State Law. — W. & Co., machinista and steam-fltters, did work upon -a stearaboat in Norfolk, Va., to the amount of $117. The boat was afterwards, and without paymeut of this bill, sold to parties in New York ; wliereupon W. & Co. filed a libel against her in the eastern district of New York for their bill. �Eeld, that they were material-men, whose daim was a lien upon the vessel by the laws of the state of Virginia, and that such a lien is enforce- able in admiralty in the state of New York. �Birdieye, Cloyes do Bayliss, for libellants. �Beebe, Wilcox d Hobhs, for defendant. �Benedict, d. J. The materials sued for do not, in my opin- ion, corne within the rule that has been applied to cases of building a vessel. The relation of the libellants was not that of builders, but of material-men. As such they acquired a lien upon the vessel for the value of the articles sued for, by virtue of the law of the state of Virginia, where the vessel then beionged, and where the contract was made. The Steamer Raleigh; 2 Hughes, 44. That lien, unless it has been lost by laches or waiver, may be enforced by this court. Neither laches nor waiver has been proved. The libellants are, there- fore, entitled to a decree for the amount of their bill, with interest and costs. ����
