THE B. F. WOOLSBY. 109 �vessel by the libellant, constitute such a tortious dealing with the property that he bas thereby forfeited or waived his lien. There is no evidence or averment in the answer of any dealing toith the yessd hersdf in connection with that sale. �Also held, that the lien was net extinguished by the gherifE seizing the vessel in a replevin suit brought by the claimant against the libel- lant. �Also hdd, that the libellant's rights as a lienor were net affected by the subsequent seizure of the vessel by the United Statea marshal, in a suit for seamen's wages, nor in a suit for wharfage. �Aleo hdd, that the libellant's act in procuring. the marshal to seize the vessel in this suit to.enforce the lien, cannot operate to extinguish the lien, provided this court has jurisdictioh, �Also hdd, that this court has jurisdiction to enforce a simple com- mon-law possessory lien, independent of the question whether the lien- or's nghts were enlarged or altered by the New York statute giving lienors the right to enforce their liens by a sale of the p'roperty. The power of a court of admiralty tb ordef the sale of a vessel does not depend ijpon the right the lihellant may have to sel! her, or cause her to be sold, to enforce his demand ; but it is a power inherent in the court, to be exercised in' the interest of commerce. The cause be- ing maritime in its nature, the collrt 'has jurisdictioh of the parties and the gulr^eet-matter. It'is inunaterial that the vessel is a domesr. tic vessel. ;;,,,-....,.;■ . •. . . �Hdd furthesr, that the New York statute was intended to and did confer on this class of lienofs' the new and enlarged right to erifotci. their liens by a sale Of the property, notwithstanding, in the partieu- lar case of a maritime cdctract,. the proposed remedy f ails because the State could not confer on any of its courts Jurisdiction to make the sale. . • .' ' •. ; �That such iailure of remedy does not'prevent the statute from hft*-- ing its eflect in thus modifying and enlarging the natuye of the lien; and a court of admiralty, in enforcing the lien, will give it full efCect, according to the intention of the statute, as a lien, carrying with it a right of enf orcement by sale of the chattel. The statute is applicable to simple common-law possessory liens, such as that of the shipwright, and is not confined to cases of liens where by the existing law the lienor had already the right to enforce his lien by sale. �AUo hdd, that the unding of the state court as to the amount due is mot conclusive on the claimant as a judgment. The state statute did not provide for a separate money judgment for the amount due, in addition to the judgment for foreclosure, nor was such judgment in fact recovered in the case. The flnding is incidental merely to the chief purpose of the action, which is the foreclosure of the lien. �In Admiralty. �Henry D. Hotchkiss, for libellant. �H. B. Kinghorn, for claimant. ��� �
