propriated  about  equally  between  them,  as  the  libellants  as-
sume to  be  the  fact  in  this  suit

But  though  this  principle  might  perhaps  be  equitably  ap-
plied to  the  present  case,  it  might  not  afford  a  safe  rule  for
cases  analogous  to  it  in  their  general  character,  but  differing
in  their  special  facts.  Suppose  that  the  vessels  were  of  differ-
ent size  and  form,  or  put  a  still  more  complicated  case  of  more
than  two  vessels  being  built  at  the  same  time,  all  differing  in
form  and  tonnage,  and  the  materials  furnished,  as  in  this  case,
on  the  credit  of  all,  and  all  belonging  to  different  owners,
though  built  by  the  same  builders  ;  there  would  be  a  real  dif-
ficulty in  making  the  apportionment,  if  it  in  fact  be  necessary
for  the  material  men  to  show  the  appropriation.
Whether  this  be  necessary,  in  the  case  supposed,  in  order  to
save  the  lien,  is  a  question  of  no  inconsiderable  importance,
provided  the  statute  lien  extends  to  a  case  where  the  materials
are  furnished  for  more  than  one  vessel  in  the  course  of  con-
struction at  the  same  time.  The  lien  is  given  where  the
materials  are  furnished  for,  and  on  account  of  the  vessel.  Un-
doubtedly it  may  be  necessary  for  the  material  men  to  show
that  they  were^such  as  are  suitable  to  the  object,  and  of  such
an  amount  as  might  be  supposed  to  be  required  for  that  pur-
pose. But  the  act  does  not  go  on  to  add,  used  for,  and  in  the
construction  of  the  vessel.  All  that  the  words  of  the  statute
require  is,  that  they  should  be  furnished  for  and  on  account  of
the  vessel.
