ROBERTS 1>. BARK WINDBRMBRB. 725 �necessarily pledged to their satisfaction more than for wages of the master, or other benefits to the mercantile adventure of the owner." �In Cox V. Murray, 1 Abb. Adm. 341, (1848,) Judge Betts restates the grounds of the decision in the case of The Amstel. �In tho case of The S. G. Owens, 1 Wall. Jr. 370, (1849,) Mr. Justice Grier held that a stevedore bas no maritime lien npon a foreign vessel for services in loading her. It was argued that the service was essentially maritime, being done on the ship, and essential to her carrying freight ; that for- merly the mariners performed this service, and had a lien for their wages, whether eamed in port or at sea, and that the stevedore, 'who for reasons of convenience is substituted for the mariners, is entitled to the same lien. The court ob- served that the argument was ingenious, but not supported by authority; that no decision or dictum was cited which would justify the court in treating this as a maritime service. He cites against the claim Phillips v. The Sattergood, Gilpin, 3, in which Judge Hopkinson made it the test of a contract not being maritime — that it was neither made at sea nor for a service to be performed at sea, but made and to be per-r formed while the vessel was moored at a wharf within the body of a county. He then adds: "The stevedores are usually enjployed by the owner, consignee, or master, on their personal credit; the service performed is in no sense maritime, being completed befoi-e the voyage is begun, or after it is ended, and they are no more entitled to a lien on the vessel than the draymen and other laborers who perform services in loading and discharging vessels." �It cannot, however, I think, be denied that later adjudica- tions have established a far less narrow and restricted defini- tion and test of what constitutes a maritime contract, of which the admiralty has jurisdiction, and, also, of the extent of the maritime lien as an incident of such a contract, than that contained in these early cases. Thus, in Ins. Co. v. Dunham, 1 1 Wall. 26, the supreme court says : "As to contracts, it has been equally well settled that the English rule, which concedes jurisdiction, with a few exceptions, only to contracts maae ����
