for his wife, as well as by his statements made in his lifetime. The question is mainly one of fact. If the deed was in fact delivered by the father before his death, to be thereafter delivered to complainant, this would constitute a good delivery: Thatcher v. St. Andrew's Church, 37 Mich. 264, 269, and cases cited. Defendant contends that there was no competent evidence of delivery. But there is abundant evidence of the grantor's statements that the deed was delivered to the defendant by him, to be delivered to the complainant. These admissions, being by a party with whom the defendant is in privity, and relating to a fact which is provable by parol, are competent: Keator v. Dimmick, 46 Barb. 158; Varick v. Briggs, 6 Paige, 323; 22 Wend. 543; Padgett v. Lawrence, 10 Paige, 170; 40 Am. Dec. 232; Baker v. Haskell, 47 N. H. 479; 93 Am. Dec. 455; 1 Greenleaf on Evidence, sec. 189. See, also, Proprietors of Church v. Bullard, 2 Met. 363. While defendant's testimony tends to rebut complainant's prima facie case, the circuit judge, who saw the witnesses, was not impressed with her version of the transaction, and we are convinced that he reached the correct conclusion. The decree will be affirmed, with costs. The other justices concurred. DEEDS-DELIVERY IN ESCROW.-A deed delivered by the grantor to a third person to be delivered to the grantee, and by such person so delivered, is valid though the grantor is dead at the date of the last delivery: Sneathen v. Sneathen, 104 Mo. 201; 24 Am. St. Rep. 326, and note. See further on this subject the notes to Jones v. Jones, 16 Am. Dec. 40; State Bank v. Evans, 28 Am. Dec. 408, and Perry v. Patterson, 42 Am. Dec. 426. EVIDENCE-DECLARATIONS OF DECEASED PERSONS.-The declarations of an ancestor to the effect that he had conveyed the property to the defendant are competent evidence in favor of the defendant and against his heirs: Terry v. Rodahan, 79 Ga. 278; 11 Am. St. Rep. 420, and note. See, also, the notes to McLeod v. Swain, 27 Am. St. Rep. 231; Connecticut River Sav. Bank v. Albee, 33 Am. St. Rep. 949, and Currier v. Gale, 77 Am. Dec. 346. GLOBE IRON WORKS COMPANY v. STEAMER "JOHN B. KETCHAM, 2ND." [100 MICHIGAN, 583.] ADMIRALTY-MARITIME CONTRACTS-STATE JURISDICTION.-Contracts for T. E. Tarsney and W. W. Wicker, for the appellant. 584 GRANT, J. This is a proceeding to enforce a lien under the water craft law of this state, being chapter 285 of Howell's Statutes. The law now in existence was enacted in 1864, and was entitled "An act to provide for the collection of demands against water craft." The claim is for one boiler and attachments, one smokestack and umbrella with attachments, furnished and used in the building, fitting, furnishing, and equipping of the steamer John B. Ketcham, 2nd. The steamer was built, and the property which is the subject of his claim was furnished, in the state of Ohio. The water craft law of that state is similar to that of Michigan. Section 44 of the act (Howell's Stats., sec. 8278) reads as follows: "In cases where, by the general maritime law or laws of any other of the United States, now or hereafter to be passed, liens similar to those provided for in this act shall have been created against water craft, the same may be enforced under the proceedings established by this act in like manner as if they accrued in this state; and chattel mortgages upon such water craft, or other interest therein, held in such other states under the laws thereof, may be enforced hereunder against surplus proceeds, in like manner as if held in this state under its laws." 585 The amended complaint is as follows: "To the circuit court for the county of Wayne: "The amended complaint of the Globe Iron Works Company against the steamer John B. Ketcham, 2nd, her engines, boats, tackle, apparel, and furniture, and against all persons lawfully intervening for their interest therein, in a cause of contract, alleges as follows: "First. That the said complainant is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the state of Ohio. "Second. That said steamer is a water craft of above five tons burthen, used and intended to be used in navigating the waters of this state, and said steamer also navigates the waters within and bordering upon the state of Ohio, and also the great lakes and their connecting waters, and, amongst others, lakes Erie, St. Clair, and Huron, and the Detroit and St. Clair rivers; that she was built by her owners, Bills & Koch, hereinafter mentioned, with the intent and for the purpose of being so used in navigating said lakes and waters, and that they so intended to use said vessel during all the time she was being built. "Third. That on or about the 14th day of May, 1892, at the special instance and request of Oscar P. Bills and Edward E. Koch, who were then the owners of said steamer, and were copartners doing business under the firm name of Bills & Koch, said complainant furnished to said steamer the materials and machinery set forth in the statement hereto annexed, marked 'Schedule A,' and made a part hereof, to be used, and which were actually used, in and about the building, fitting, furnishing, and equipping said steamer, said steamer then being in the process of construction, and such materials and machinery being intended to be used, and actually were used, in and about the original building, constructing, fitting, furnishing, and equipping said steamer; that for said materials said copartners agreed, to and with said complainant, to pay said complainant the amount of money, and the interest thereon, stated in the said schedule, to wit, the sum of $4,054.72, $3,936.33 thereof on the 25th day of November, 1892, and $118.39 thereof on the 25th day of August, 1892. "Fourth. That said materials and machinery are reasonably worth the sums of money charged for them in said schedule. "Fifth. That, at the time of the commencement of this action, there was, and now is, due said complainant for the said materials the sum of $4,054.72, with interest on $3,936.33 thereof from the 25th day of November, 1892, at the rate of six per cent per annum, and on $118.39 thereof AM. ST. REP., VOL. XLIIL -80 from the 25th day of August, 1892, at the same rate, and that no part of the same has ever been paid. "Sixth. That the said contract for furnishing the materials and 586 machinery aforesaid was made and performed by the said complainant, and the said materials and machinery were accepted and used, and intended to be accepted and used as aforesaid, by the said Bills & Koch, in the said state of Ohio; that at the time of the making of said contract between the said complainant and the said Bills & Koch, and at the time the said complainant so furnished the said materials and machinery, the said vessel, as said complainant is informed and believes, was then upon the land in said state of Ohio, and not in the water, and had never been in the water, and had never been launched, and that at the time of the making of said contract it was the intent and purpose of both the said complainant and the said Bills & Koch that the said machinery should be placed in the said vessel before she was removed from the land or launched or placed in the water, and that the said materials and machinery were so placed in the said vessel while she was upon the land, and before she was launched or placed in the water; that at the time of the making of said contract, and at the time the complainant performed the same by the delivery of said materials and machinery, and at the time the same was so placed in said vessel by said Bills & Koch, the said vessel, as the complainant is informed and believes, had not been licensed or enrolled under the acts of Congress. "Seventh. Complainant further alleges that, on and for a long time prior to the said 14th day of May, 1892, and during all the time since, there have been, and now are, created, by the laws of the state of Ohio, liens against water craft similar to those provided for by chapter 285 of Howell's Annotated Statutes of the state of Michigan. "Eighth. That the laws of the state of Ohio, on and for a long time prior to said 14th day of May, 1892, and during all the time since, have provided, and do now provide, that any steamboat or other water craft navigating the waters within or bordering upon said state shall be liable, and such liabil ity shall be a lien thereon for all debts contracted on account thereof by the master, owner, steward, consignee, or other agent for materials, supplies, or labor in building, repairing, furnishing, or equipping of the same. "Ninth. That the laws of said state further provide that the liens herein before mentioned may be enforced in a proceeding in the nature of a proceeding in rem against the water craft against which they accrue by name. "Tenth. That, by the laws of the state of Ohio aforesaid, a lien in favor of said complainant has been created and now exists against the said steamer, for the said sum o $4,054.72, with interest thereon as aforesaid, and by reason of the premises and of the statute in such case made and provided said complainant is entitled to and has a lien upon, the said steamer John B. Ketcham, 2nd, 587 for the sum of of money last mentioned, and interest thereon as aforesaid, which lien is enforceable under the statutes of this state in such case made and provided; that said complainant is informed and believes that, since its said lien has accrued, said steamer has been sold by said copartnership, but to whom said complainant does not know, but positively avers that the present owners of said steamer are not bona fide purchasers thereof without notice, but that, on the other hand, they had full notice and knowledge of the said lien of the complainant at the time they purchased said steamer. 66 Wherefore, said complainant prays that process in due form, according to the course and practice of this court, under the statute in such case made and provided, may issue, directed to the sheriff of said county, commanding him to seize and safely keep said steamer John B. Ketcham, 2nd, her tackle, apparel, and furniture, to answer all such liens as shall be established against it according to law, and to make return of his proceedings under such warrant, pursuant to said statute; and also that, pursuant to said statute, a summons to the owner or master of said steamer be issued in due form, and that judgment may be rendered in favor of said complainant for its claim aforesaid, and that the same may be satisfied, and the complainant's said lien against said steamer may be enforced, according to the statute in such case made and provided, and that said complainant may have such other and further relief in the premises as the case may entitle it to." The defendant owner demurred to the complaint upon the ground that it did not set forth a cause of action cognizable by the state court, but that, the vessel being engaged in commerce upon the great lakes, proceedings in rem to enforce the collection of a claim against her can be maintained |