The Garonne

(after stating the facts as. above).

It is contended that there was error in allowing the appellee the sum of $291.65, the first item in the libel adjudged to be due him on the contract of lighterage made on May 16, 1904, and that the amount due on that contract is not a lien against the ship in the hands of the present owner. But the owner allowed the North Alaska Steamship Company to have the entire control, management, and employment of the vessel, and to become the owner pro hac vite. In such a case the general owner must be deemed to consent that the special owner may create liens binding on the former’s interest in the vessel as security for the performance of contracts of affreightment and for maritime service. The Schooner Freeman v. Buckingham et al., 18 How. 182 , 15 L.Ed. 341 . And a contract for *31 the lighterage of freight and passengers from a vessel moored at a distance from the land is essentially a contract for a maritime service. Thackeray v. The Farmer, Gilp. 526 , Fed.Cas.No.13,852; Benedict’s Admiralty, § 158. The appellant denies that there is a lien, for the further reason that the North Alaska Steamship Company contracted with all shippers of cargo on…