BEINECKB V. 8TEAUSHIP SBORIiT. 667 �some business for the employment of steamers between ports in Florida and foreign ports. He chargea the goods on hia books to "Steamer Secret and owners." It was his practice, however, in all cases where he sold goods for vessels, both foreign and domestie, to make the charges on his books in this way. He was well acquainted with the senior member of the firm of Murray, Ferris & Co., and believed him to be a person of entire integrity. It was well known in - Kew York that a former firm of Murray, Ferris & Co., com- posed in whole or in part of the same members, had failed in 1874, and that the firm, in December, 1878, were doing busi- ness under the name of "Murray, Ferris & Co., Agents." They were actively engaged in business, but their financial standing was not high. �The libellant sent in his bill to Murray, Ferris & Co. after the steamer left this port, and they paid on account of it $90. The balance remains unpaid. Afterwards, and while the vessel was at Florida, he furnished, upon the order of Mur- ray, Ferris & Co., a further bill of goods to the amount of $18, which were to be sent to her in Florida. They were delivered to and shipped by Murray, Ferris & Co. This suit is for the balance of the first bill, and for the goods sent to Florida; in ail, $222.81. �Upon these facts it is clear that the libellants have no lien on the vessel. They knew they were dealîng with New York parties, and not with the foreign owner or the master, who presumably represents the owner; and they were put upon inquiry as to the interest and relation of Murray, Ferris & Co. to the vessel, and are chargeable with the facts they might have ascertained on such inquiry. They could easily have learned that Murray, Ferris & Co. had no right or power to bind the owners or the vessel for the supplies, and that they were, in fact, the owners, so far as concerned parties supply- ing the ship. Consol. Goal Co. v. The Secret, U. S. Cire. Ct. S. D. N. Y., December 1, 1879, and cases cited. �I think, also, it cannot be f airly claimed that either of these libellants furnished the goods on the credit of the vessel in such sense as to entitle them to a maritime lien. While they ����
