184 FEDERAL REPORTER. �in the agreeraent, the petitioners would not be bound from Beeking to establish it by reason of this agreement between OOTinsel. �The couneel for the assignee bas put in an answer to this petition, and states varions reasons why the prayer of the petitioner shoiild not be granted. He admits repairs and supplies f urnished the said tug-boats by the petitioners before the acts of bankruptoy, but disputes the correctness of the amounts. He admits bankrupts giving a promissory note for $1,000 on aecount of said indebtedness. He admits bank- rupts' two-third interest in said Brown, and eleven twenty- fourths interest in Churchman, were sold by the order of the court, free and olear of ail liens; and that the proceeds of bankrupts' interest in said Brown, amounting to $2,000, and in said Churchman, amounting to $2,600, have been paid to the said respondent as assignee of said bankrupts' estate. Ha further admits that the repairs, etc., to both vessels were fur- nished in the city of Philadelphia ; the Brown being owned wholly out of the state of Pennsylvania, and the Churchman being owned partly in Delaware and partly in Pennsylvania, Assignee denies that materials and supplies were furnished on the "credit of the said boats, as well as of the masters and owners of them respectively. " Further, the assignee does not admit the fairness and reasonableness of the charges. As- signee insists that this petition is irregular, defective, and in- sufficient, because it was not preceded or accompanied by legal proof of the claim of said petitioners, as required by the act of congress, and on that aecount should be dismissed. Assignee further insists that no maritime lien was ever created on said boats, or either of them, by reason of repairs and supplies furnished, and if one ever did exist it bas been waived and no longer exists by reason of the laches of the petitioners in omit- ting to take proceedings for the ascertainment and enforce- ment of the pretended lien prior to the time of filing this peti- tion. The assignee claims that the petitioners are barred from attempting to establish any lien by reason of the lapse of time since the accruing of the cause of action, and craves ibe protection of the statute of limitations of the state of Delà- ����
