
    STEAMBOAT TIME vs. PARMLEE.
    APPEAL from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas.
    Spalding, for Appellant, insists:
    
    In this case the only question is, whether a demand against a steamboat, that'accruedentirely in< the State of Kentucky, being a sale of supplies to the boat at Louisville by residents there, is alien on the boat under the laws of Missouri, to he enforced by a suit against the boat hy name, here!. The appellant sustains the negative, and refers to the Raritan cases argued at this term, and the briefs and arguments therein..
    Hamilton, for Appellee.
    This case is intended to present the question, whetfier or not a creditor residing out of this-State, can arrest a boat here, used in navigating the waters of this State, upon a claim for supplies furnished! or her use, at Louisville, Kentucky, within six months before suit brought. The appellee holds the affirmative of this question, and refers to the points and authorities in the case of the steamboat Raritan vs. Pollard, argued at this'term.
   Scott, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This was a proceeding under the statute concerning boats and vessels,, against the steamboat Time, the appellant. There was a judgment for the plaintiff, from which the defendant appealed.

The suit was to recover supplies furnished the boat, at Louisville in Kentucky. The owners of the boat did not reside in this State, and she was built at Louisville. This case then comes within the principle of that of the steamboat Raritan vs. Pollard, decided at this term of the Court, and raises the same question.

The other Judges concurring, the judgment will be reversed.  