524 FEDEEAL BEPOETEB. �they first arise upon the question whether the claims for insurance should be included as one of the contracts of a maritime character for which state law gives a lien. That the contraot of insurance is a maritime contract is settled by the decision of the supreme court in the case of Ins. Co. v. Dtiiiham, 11 Wall. 1. �2. Whether the claim for materials and labor in the building of a boat is a maritime contract. That such a claim is not a maritime contract is also settled by the decision of the supreme court in Edwards v. Elliot, 21 Wall. 532, and the authorities there cited. �3. The mortgage must be postponed to the lien given by the general admiralty law for supplies and repairs. The Emily Souder, 17 Wall. 666. Now, if the lien created by the statute of the state for these claims, when furniahed in the home port, is of equal dignity with liens given by the general admiralty law, it follows that the mortgage must be postponed to them also. Aside from this reason- ing the weight of authority would seem in favor of the priority of liens for home supplies to that of a mortgage. The William T. Graves, 8 Ben, 568; The Favorill, 3 Sawy. 405; The St. Joseph, Brown, Adm. 202; The Bradish Johnson, 10 Chi. Leg. N, 353; The Kiarsage, 2 Cur. 421 ; The Granite State, 1 Spr. 277. �4. The mortgage must be postponed to the lien given by the state statute for materials and labor in the building of the boat. This lien existed when the mortgage was given, and the latter must there- fore be subject to it. Jones v. The Commerce, 14 Ohio, 409; Provost V. WUcox, 17 Ohio, 359; Johnson v. Ward, 27 Ohio Bt. 520; Steamer Monarch v. Marine liy. Co. 7 Ohio St. 478. �5. The mortgage not being an admiralty contract, nor having an admiralty lieu, can only be treated as a legal lien. Bogart v. Steam- boat John Jay, 17 How. 399; The Emily Souder, 17 Wall. 666; The Lottawanna, 21 Wall. 558. �6. The claim on the part of the owner of the boat for an allowance of $.500 in lieu of a homestead eannot prevail against liens which exist by virtue of the general admiralty law, nor against those created by the state statute. Johnson v. Ward, 27 Ohio St. 520. �7. The lien given by section 5880 of the Laws of Ohio is a lien created by the express terms of the statute, and requii'es for its perfection none of the proceedings as provided for in the mechanics' lien law of the state. Johnson v. Ward, supra. �8. In reply to the proposition that as the state statute, which creates liens, maires no distinction between liens upou contracts which ��� �
