124 FEDERAL REPORTER. �(6) A payment on account goea to extinguish that part of the account for which there is a lien. 1 Spr. 206 ; 2 Parsons, Sliip. & Adm. 153. �(7) Giving credit for a longer time than the lien lasts is a waiver of it. 7 Pet. 324, 344; 2 Parsons, Ship. & Adm. 152. �Hughes, D. J. This is not an action brought upon an ordinary con- tractby non-residents against a resident in a United States court on its law or equity sida. It is a proceeding in rem in admiralty, brought in the United States district court as a court of admiralty. Suoh a proceeding will only lie upon a contract which is maritime. If the claims pref erred in this proceeding be maritime, the court has jurisdie- tion. If they are not maritime, the proceeding is coram non judice, and will have to be dismissed. The owners,. defendants, contend that the several claims represented by the respective libellants and petitioners here were for the original construction of the dredge Pacific ; that such claims are not enforceable in admiralty ; and that the court eannot entertain or enforce them in this proceeding, however meritorious in their nature, and however valid in equity and good conscience against the original owners of the dredge. Pardessus & Anthony, who pro- cured the materials to be furnished and the work to be done which constitute the basis of these claims. The propositions of law relied upon by the owners or claimants are correct. �In People's Ferry Co. y. Beers, 20 How. 393, the United States supreme court, which gives us the admiralty law, decided, against the then generally prevalent opinion of the district judges, that a con- tract to build and complete a vessel is not within the admiralty juris- diction of the United States courts,- thongh the intention should be to employ the vessel in navigating the ocean; and that such material- man or builder, if he has a lien at all, has only the common-law possessory lien, or such statutory lien as local legislation may have created; neither of which, of itself, confers the admiralty jurisdie- tion. It held that this admiralty jurisdiction, in cases of contract, depends primarily upon the nature of the contract, and is limited to eontracts, claims, and services purely maritime, touching rights and duties appertaining to commerce and navigation. It said- �" It would be a strange doctrine to hold a ship bound in a case wliero the owner made a contract in writing, charging himself to pay by instalmsnts for building the vessel at a time when she was neither registered uor licensod as a sea-going ship." �It deelared that the wages of shijjwrights have no reference to a Yojage to be performed. The court noticed the fact that district courts had recognized the lien of builderd and furnishers of material ��� �
