This is a libel in rem by the Shell Company of California to establish a lien for fuel oil, of the value of $2,267.10, supplied August 14, 1919, in the port of San Francisco, to the steamer Admiral Goodrich, owned by the claimant, the Pacific Steamship Company, a corporation of Portland, Me. The fuel oil was ordered by the Gulf Steamship Company, the charterer of the vessel.

The charter is a time charter, dated July 23, 1919, for three calendar *363 months from the day of the delivery of the vessel fitted for the service. It provides:

The Act of June 23, 1910, relating to liens on vessels for repairs, supplies, or other necessaries (36 Stat. pt. 1, 604 [Comp. St. §§ 7783-7787]) incorporated in the Merchant Marine Act of June 5, 1920 (41 Stat. pt. 1, 988), provides, among other things:

It appears from the evidence that, at the time the fuel oil was delivered to the Admiral Goodrich, Cornelius F. Buckley, Jr., was the assistant manager of the fuel oil department of the Shell Oil Company of California, with full charge of deliveries to steamers in San Francisco Bay; that Mr. Hartman, the president of the Gulf Mail Steamship Company, called up Mr. Buckley on the telephone about 10 o’clock on the morning of August 14, 1919, and told him they wanted oil for the Admiral Goodrich; that they were in a great hurry for it; that she was due to leave that evening. Delivery of the oil was made at about 2 o’clock in the afternoon of the same day.

As to the ownership of the Admiral Goodrich, Buckley testified that he did not know who owned the steamer; knew she was advertised as one of the Gulf Mail steamers; did not make any inquiry as to ownership; did not know there was a charter of the steamer. The Gulf Mail was acting as manager of the steamer, and he sold the oil to them as ordered by the manager of the steamer and charged it to the steamer and owners. He never had been able to find out who the owners of these steamers were. They changed around so often. The Admiral Dine, and the Pacific Steamship Company, the Alaska Steamship Company, and the Pacific-Alaska Steamship Company, and another company were shifting their ships around so that he could not keep track of who the owners were; in fact, at one time he remembered a case where he tried to find out 'who the owner of the steamer was, and *364 they were very huffy about it, and thought he was trying to get control of the stock. So he gave that up as bad business. He never could get any business if he followed those tactics.

On cross-examination Buckley testified that he had never had occasion to furnish fuel oil to the Admiral Goodrich prior to that time. He was familiar with the outstanding contract to furnish fuel oil to specified steamers of the Gulf Mail Steamship Company, and knew that the Admiral Goodrich was not in that contract.

The court below held that:

The libelant’s assistant manager of its fuel oil department, in full charge of deliveries to steamers in San Francisco Bay did not know who owned the steamer, and he made no inquiry as to ownership. He did not know that there was a charter of the steamer. He had never had occasion to furnish fuel oil to the Admiral Goodrich prior to that time. He was familiar with the outstanding contract to furnish oil to specified steamers of the Gulf Mail Steamship Company, and knew that the Admiral Goodrich was not in that contract. Manifestly his lack of knowledge o'f the ownership of the Admiral Goodrich was because he made no inquiry as to that ownership, and his knowledge that there was a contract between the libelant and the Gulf Mail Steamship Company to furnish fuel oil for certain specified steamers of the latter company and that the Admiral Goodrich was not in the contract was sufficient to place 1pm upon inquiry as to such ownership and the authority of the Gulf Mail Steamship Company to order fuel oil for that vessel upon the security of a maritime lien, and he was not entitled to rest upon any presumptions whatever until these inquiries had been made.

This question has been conclusively determined by the Supreme Court in its recent decision in United States v. Carver, 43 Sup. Ct. 181, 67 L. Ed. -, where the court, referring to the language of the act now under consideration, said:

This is precisely the situation of the libelant in this case. 'It does not appear that there would have been any difficulty in finding out that there was a charter of the vessel and its terms, or, if such information *365 was withheld by the persons in charge of the vessel, the libelant might well have declined to deliver the oil without the information and authority that would fasten a lien, if a lien was deemed necessary.

The decree of the lower court is affirmed.