46e , fEDBSAlj BEPOaiEB. �remedy, in form, in rem, but tie ground of the decisions lias been that the remedy given was not a oommon-Iaw remedy, the action being for the enforcement of a maritime contract. Cases cited above. And the remarks of Mr. Justice Miller, in giving the opinion of the court in The Tline v. Trevor, 4 Wall. 556-571, are strictly applicable to this case: "Such actions may also be maintained in personam against a defendant in the common-law courts, as the common law g- .es ; all in con- sistence with the grant of admiralty powers in the ninth section of the judiciary act. But it could not haye been the intention of congress, by the exception in that section, to give the suitor all such remedies as might afterwards be enacted by state statutes, for this would have enabled the states to make the jurisdiction of their courts concurrent in ail cases by simply providing a statiitory remedy for all cases. Thus the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts would be def eated. " �For these reasona I am of opinion that the state court had no jurisdiction in the action brought therein to direct a sale of the vessel under its deeree for the purpose of enforcing the plaintifï's lien. Consequently, the claimant Terrell is alone entitled, as claimant, to bond the vessel and defend. ����
