GARRISON, J.
William P. Kain, Jr., and Robert M. Julian for defendant. William L. Standard and Morton J. Heckerling for plaintiff. GARRISON, J. Upon trial of the issues in this case, the defendant tendered the issue of law that the Municipal Court has no jurisdiction of this action for maintenance and cure. Appropriate motions to dismiss at the end of plaintiff's case, at the end of the entire case, and again after verdict, were made, and this court has reserved decision with the acquiescence of counsel for both sides. The defendant does not contend that none of the State courts have jurisdiction of an action for maintenance and cure (it concedes that State courts of general jurisdiction have), but it contends that the jurisdiction of the Municipal Court is limited to those causes of action enumerated in section 6 of the New York City Municipal Court Code, and in the absence of a provision covering marine causes of action this court is without power to assume jurisdiction of this action. Defendant asserts that in no reported cases (involving maintenance and cure) was the question of this court's jurisdiction over such subject matter raised. With the declarations of the defendant hereafter, I am in accord: that maintenance and cure is an ancient relational duty imposed by the general admiralty law upon the employer of quasi contractual (a contract implied in law) — the Municipal Court under either theory has jurisdiction; and I so determine in this action. Wherefore all motions of the defendant to dismiss the complaint are denied, and the motion to vacate and set aside the verdict of the jury is denied.