THE PACIFIC. 123 �be used in ceilain cases, and has no relation to the question of jurisdiction." 1 Black, 526. See, also, pages 629-30 of same case, where it is stated that the lien given by local law must attach to a maritime contract, and that state laws would be enforced only "where it did not involve controversies beyond the limita of admiralty jurisdiction." �"An act of assembly cannot enlarge or regulate the jurisdiction of the ad- miralty by its own provisions. * * * A lien given by a state may be enforced by a suit in rem in the admiralty, lut it must be suoJi a suit <xs the admiralty can entertain; in other words, where the contract or service are maritime, althoiigh they are not such as would authorize a proceeding in rem in the admiralty, because there was no lien for them ; yet when the state law supplies this deficiencyand gives this lien, the court of admiralty will enforce it. This is not enlarging the jurisdiction of the court, but the remedy of the party. It does not authorize a suit in the admiralty on the subject-matter, not of admiralty jurisdiction, but only gives a particular remedy for the re- covery of the debt." Crabbe, 431-3. "A state statute conferring a lien not maritime cannot confer jurisdiction on the United States courts." 22 How. 129, 182. "A court of admiralty has no jurisdiction of a suit in «-emagainst a ship to rocover for work, etc., done in building a ship, even though the state law givea a lien therefor." 3 Ben. 163. See, to same effect, 11 Blatchf. 451 ; 14 Blatchf. 24 ; 2 Hughes, 48, 49, 52, 54 ; 43 N. Y. 554, 563. "The admi- ralty jurisdiction in personam does not depend upon the question of lien." 39 N. Y. 27, and cases cited. �(3) If any state law at all applies it is the law of the place where the sup- plies were delivered, and not the law of the place where the f urnisher resides, nor the law of the forum. Of course the lex looi. governs. The law of Vir- ginia, therefore, has nothing whatever to do with the case. 2 Parsons, Ship. & Adm. 326. �(4) The parties must therefore rest their case, if they have any, on the law of New York. The part of the law giving the lien may be found in 39 N. Y. 21. That law has been construed to be valid, in so far as it conf ers juris- diction upon state courts for the enforcement of liens contracted in the building of vessels, for the very reason that such building is not a maritime contract. There can be no doubt of its validity in so far as it confera juris- diction on its state courts fpr the enforcement of liens not maritime but common law. To that extent state laws are, of course, valid, as they do not interfere with the admiralty. AU cases that may be cited in opposition to the ground taken above will be found on examination to resolve themselves into this and nothing more. 43 N. Y. 52, 56-7, 554^563. �(5) Even if any of these supplies were of a maritime nature, and the state law could give them a remedy in rem, they have no lien uuder the New York law. That law requires that, in order to preserve the lien, specifications must be filed within 12 days after the departure of the vessel from the port where the supplies were furnished. 61 N. Y. 532-8. In order to avail themselves of the law they must, of course, bring themselves within its provisions. These laws are in derogation of the general law, and must be strictly construed and strictly complied with. The Lottawanna, 21 Wall. 558. Not one of the peti- tioners flled specifications in this case. ��� �
