584 TEDEBAIi BBPOBTBB. �19 Ho-vf. 239, and The Lottawanna, 21 Wall. 558, 582, — a prac- tice whioli permits any party having an interest in such fund to apply by petition to have his claim satisfied out of the same, and this although the petitioner cannot prosecute a suit in admiralty. In view, then, of the changed condition of the case, it becomes unnecessary to consider the question raised in the commissioner's report, and by exceptions thereto, and discussed by counsel, whether state statutes may create liens for debts incurred in building, and furnishing materials for building, vessels, which will be enforceable in admiralty, as is affirmed by Mr. Conckling, (volume 1, page 104,) by Mr. Benedict, (section 270,) and by Mr. Desty in his late manual on Shipping and Admiralty, (section 90,) and as was ruled affirmatively by Judge Story, in Read v. New Brig, 1 Story, 244, and by Judge Hopkinson in Davis v. New Brig, GUpin, 473, �None of these domestic creditors have maritime liens. It is only by virtue of the Pennsylvania statute that any of them have liens; and the statute makes no distinction between debts contracted in the building of a vessel, and debts for supplies or repairs to her. They are ail equally made liens. It is plain, therefore, that a party who must resort to this statute to maiutain a footing at ail in this court cannot suc- cessfuUy call in question the right of another claimant, and clearly conferred by the same statute. Whoever else may be heard to assert that a contraet for building a vessel is not a maritime contraet, or in the nature thereof, it is certain that he cannot, upon that ground, defeat the builder's lien given by the statute. But it has been further urged, against the claim of MeCaskey & Kerr, who built the huU of the Coal Bluff No. 2, and furnished the materials there/or, that they were contractors to build the hull, and, upon the authority of Walker v. Anslmtz, 6 Watts & Ser. 619, not entitled to a lien. But that case arose under the Pennsylvania act of 1836, which is legs broad than the act of 1S58. The latter act was construed by the supreme court of the state in the case of The Dictator, 56 Pa. St. 290, in which it was held ����
