TOWN OF PBLHAiM*t>.'BdHô6NER B. P. WOOLSET, ^61 �àny evidence. But it is plaiii that if, in a case where the plàintifi had possession, the court had jurisdiction of the cause, tlien the court had power and authority to determine the ques- tion of possession, and the decision of the court on that faot. cannot be attacked collaterally by the party against whom the finding on that issue is. His remedy is by appeal, or such other mode of review as is appointed by the laws of New York for obtaining a review and reversai of the judgment in case of errer. In re Griffith, 18 N. B. R. 510.. �It is claimed, on behalf of the purchaser Hawkins, that the state court had jurisdiction to order the sale of Terrell's in- terest in its judgment in that action. It is conceded that the contract set forth in the complaint in that action, being a contract for the repair of a domestic vessel, is a maritime, contract.,, This has been held alike by the courts of the United States and by the court of appeals of New York. The Josephine, 39 N. Y. 19; Brookman v. Havùll, 43 N. Y. 554; Poole w.Kermit, 59 N.Y.6o4-556: The General Smith,'i: WhQat. 438. The fact that the w,ork consisted of '^Iterations as weU as repairs cannot make it theless a maritime contract; and the averment in the complaint tl^at the yessei wàs nçw, mustj be tàken as qualified by tte other averment that before that it was alreàdy a vessel which w£;.s aïtered and repaired. ThisJ^ averment cannot make the contract one'ior building a vessel, which would not be maritime, although the vessel may ba^ called in one sense new or rebuUt as the resuit bf the altera-" tions and repairs; and I understand that, it, is not claimed that the contract was not maritime. �No question, also, can be made on the other hand that a mechanic who takes possession of a vessel, and does work on her upon the employment of the owher, has his common- law lien on the vessel, so long as he remains in possession, for the amount of his proper charges, in the same manner that he would have upon any other chattel. That a suit to «nforce a maritime contract is within the admiralty and mar- itime jurisdiction of the district courts of the United States, is also unquestionable; and that jurisdiction is exclusive, ����
