ENDNER V. GBECO. 4:13 �already built; and it ,is. çlaimed that the reasonîng of thia case is also adopted by the supreme court la Edwards v. EUiott, 21 Wall. 532, 554. �If these cases contain some expressions warranting such an argument it is sufficient to refer to the language of Mr. Justice Clififord, who delivered the opinions in both of those cases, in the subsequent case of The Lottawanna, 21 Wall. 558, 591 : "Undisputed matters need not be discussed ; consequently, it may be assumed that a contract for necessary repairs or sup- plies is a maritime contract, whether the vessel was at home or abroad when the repairs and supplies were made and fur- nished," Id. 591-2. He dissented from the decision of the majority of the court on the ground that the case of The General Smith was erroneously deeided, and that a contract for repairs or supplies to a vessel in her home port was not only a maritime contract, but one to which the general mari- time law attaehed a maritime lien. See, also, Brookman v. Hamill, 43 N. Y. 554 ; Vose v. Cockcroft, 44 N. T. 416 ; Poole y. Kermit, 59 N. Y. 554. Nor is there any valid objection to the jurisdiction in this case growing out of the character of the Bcows, or the uses to which they were adapted and applied. They were adapted only for use in port, and were in fact used in carrying ballast to and from vessels. When taken from 3ressels,,by them the ballast was carried to some point on the bay and dumped on the shore. They had neither steam-power nor sails nor rudders, and were moved about by steam-tugs. In these respects they were not unlike canal-boats and barges, although these have rudders. Canal- boats are now treated as vessels. While these scows are employed in carrying ballast to or from a vessel, that ballast may be considered as their ca.rgo. They are, as it seems to me, properly to be considered vessels, — instruments of com- merce and navigation, — a contract for the repair of which is maritime, because it bas relation to trade and commerce, and " some connection with a vessel employed in trade." See The Kate Tremaine, 5 Ben. 60; The Onore, 6 Ben. 564; The River Quecn, (unreported;) The Bob Connell, 1 Fed. Kkp. 218; Dunham v. Ins. Co. 11 Wall 1. ����
