THE LAUEETTA. 6&' �the, libellant wcnt tb the Spruce-sfcreet whai-f, where the vessel was then lying, and told the claimant that he had a claim againsther for materials, and work. No bill of items was presented. The only reply to this demand that seems to have been made by the claimant was: "There is the vessel. if she owes you anything attach her and make yo'ur ihoney." No other claim was made, then or afterwards, and no steps taken to enforce a lien against the vessel until the libel was flled in this case, July 20, 1878, nearly two years after the debt was contracted. �Three facts appear quite distinctly in the proofs, all of which are important in the decision of the case : �(1) That during all the time whieh elapsed between the contraction of the debt and filing the libel, the vessel was engaged in the oyster trade at Phila- delphia, and was not out of the Dela ware river and bay ; (2) that the libellant knew of the sale of the vessel to the claimant, about the time that the transfer took place ; (3) that the place of business of the claimant was near that, of the libellant, and that no notice of the demand, except as above sta,ted, was ever given by the libellant to the clainiant, �The case turns upon the question of laches. Is the claim, under the circumstances, stale ? While a maritime lien confera upon ma- terial-men the right to enforce their claims, as against foreign vessels, by proceedings in rem, yet the interests of navigation demand that some restrictions should be placed upon such right. Vessels are a species of property, the ownership of which is frequently changea. The lien is a secret one, and purchasers, by the exercise of the great est diligence, cannot always asoertain the existence of such encum- brances, or guard against loss, if they are fluffered to attach foi any considerable length of time. Public policy, therefore, requires that when innocent purchasers are to be affected, reasonable diligence should be used in enforcing the lien, or the crediter should be con- sidered as having waived it. Mero lapse of time, it is true, will not ren- der a demand stale, wbere there are circumstances — as, for instance, the absence of the vessel — which hinder its enforcement. But where the opportunity bas occurred, and no proceedings have been taken by the lienor to hold the vessel liable, until after new parties, without notice of the encumbrance, have corne into the ownership, it is obviously inequitable and unjust to allow the lien to hold longer than is necessary to afford time for its reasonable enforcement. These are elementary principles, found in all the books and adjudged cases on the subject. �It is difiBcult to lay down any general rule where the circumstances of each case differ so widely. The saiest I have found is the one ��� �
