right of a subsequent bona fide purchaser without notice of the fraud.1 Removal of master. SECTION II. Removal of Master. The Court has power to remove the master of a British ship on the application of an owner, part owner, consignee, agent of the owner, certificated mate, or one-third of the crew, when it is proved by oath that such removal is necessary. The amount of necessity to cause this power to be exercised is a matter wholly for the discretion of the judge; for example, a master was removed for fraudulent breach of trust. A new master may be appointed by the Court in place of one who has been removed, with the consent of the owner, agent of the owner, or consignee of the ship, if within the jurisdiction of the Court. If they are without the jurisdiction, then the judge may appoint the new master on his sole responsibility. The Court has also jurisdiction,-if the applicant shows a valid registered title to the vessel,-to order the former 1 Wilkins v. Despard, 5 T. R. 112; The Annadale, L. R. 2 Ad. D. 179; 36 L. T. N. S. 259; 46 L J. Ad. D. 68. Affirmed on appeal, L. R. 2 Ad. D. 218; 37 L. T. N. S. 139; 47 L. J. Ad. D. 3. 2 M. S. A. 1854, s. 240. Any Court having Admiralty jurisdiction in any of her Majesty's dominions may, upon application by the owner of any ship being within the jurisdiction of such Court, or by the part owner or consignee, or by the agent of the owner, or by any certificated mate, or by one-third or more of the crew of such ship, and upon proof on oath to the satisfaction of such Court that the removal of the master of such ship is necessary, remove him accordingly; and may also, with the consent of the owner or his agent, or the consignee of the ship, or if there is no owner or agent of the owner or consignee of the ship within the jurisdiction of the Court, then without such consent, appoint a new master in his stead; and may also make such order, and may require such security in respect of costs, in the matter, as it thinks fit. 3 The Frances, 2 Dods. 420; The Royalist, Br. & L. 46. master to deliver up the certificate of registry and the ship's papers.' SECTION III. Actions for Injuries inflicted by Persons on the High Seas. diction of The Admiralty Division possesses in virtue of its ancient The jurismaritime jurisdiction power to entertain actions in perso- the Court. nam for injuries inflicted by one person to another on the high seas. It is a jurisdiction which, though it exists, is not at the present day employed, but which nevertheless cannot be considered as obsolete.2 1 The St. Olafs, L. R. 2 Ad. D. 113; 35 L. T. N. S. 429. H General rule. CHAPTER X. THE ORDER OF CLAIMS. It is a primary principle of Admiralty Law that liens ex contractu rank against the res in the inverse order of their attachment, on the ground that the last act in respect of which the latest claim arises being a service to those who have anterior claims is entitled to rank before such claims.1 Wages, however, usually rank before every other claim ex contractu, such as may arise from bottomry bonds, mortgages of the ship, or the supply of necessaries; and, as will be pointed out later, there are also some other exceptions to this principle, the question when difficulties arise being governed by the lex foris As regards claims for damage and salvage, and claims ex contractu, both rank before the latter species of claim, and as regards life salvage and salvage of property, claims in respect of the former service take precedence of the latter kind.5 4 It has never been judicially decided whether a salvage claim which is created subsequent to the date when a claim for damages arises takes precedence of this claim. 1 The Cargo ex Galam, Br. & L. 167; The William F. Safford, Lush. 69. 2 The Union, Lush. 128. 3 The Union, Lush. 128. 4 The Linda Flor, Swa. 309; The Benares, 7 No. of Cas. L. (damage); The Gustaf, Lush. 506; 31 L. J. Ad. 207; The Selina, 2 No. of Cas. 15 (salvage). 5 M. S. A. 1854, s. 459; The Coromandel, Swa. 205. But on principle the salvors should take precedence, because they have preserved the property on which the damage lien exists, and without their services the lien of those whose ship has been injured might never be even partially satisfied. For somewhat similar reasons it has been decided that the holder of a bottomry bond given in respect of monies advanced to repair a vessel on which a damage lien already exists, has a right against the accretions in value of the ship caused by the repairs on which the sum advanced has been laid out, and that the right of the claimant in respect of the damages caused by such ship extended only to repairs done by the owner at his own expense.1 As regards claims by holders of bottomry bonds, where Bottomry there are two or more bonds, they rank according to the main rule, the last having precedence, and so on, to the first in the order of time, unless the holders of bonds of different dates have acted in concert and privity as though they were the lenders of one sum, when their claims will be paid pro ratâ.3 If a bond is given upon ship, freight, and cargo, the proceeds of the ship and freight must be exhausted before the cargo can be touched; and on the same principle, if of two or more bonds the latest is on ship, freight, and cargo, and the others on ship and freight, the last must be paid out of the ship and freight, even though by so doing the other bonds will not be satisfied.5 When the cargo alone is hypothecated, the ship and freight will, though not mentioned in the bond, become liable before the cargo can be touched, because the former are the primary resources to pay a bottomry bond, and The Aline, 1 W. Rob. 111. The Eliza, 3 Hagg. 87. 3 The Exeter, 1 C. Rob. 173. The Bonaparte, 3 W. Rob. 292. 5 The Priscilla, Lush. 1; 1 L. T. N. S. 272. * The Gratitudine, 3 C. Rob. 240 (264). Neces saries. when a bond on the cargo alone was intermediate between two on the ship only, the holder of this instrument was held to have the first claim against the freight and cargo, contrary to the usual principle as to time, for the lenders on the security of the ship might have specifically mentioned the freight and cargo so as to give them a claim against these as well as the vessel.1 When the ship and freight belong to different persons they will usually bear a rateable proportion of the payment of the bond.2 When a bondholder and a master make claims against a ship and freight and cargo, the claim of the master, if bound personally by the bond, will be postponed to that of the bondholder, unless the latter can be postponed without prejudice to his rights, as by allowing his claim to be satisfied from the cargo. But if the master has not so bound himself then his rights are superior to those of the bondholder.4 Again, though wages earned before and after the giving of a bottomry bond take precedence of it, yet this rule has been held not to extend to a case where the bond was given on a voyage subsequent to that on which the wages were earned. It may be, however, that a reason for this practice will be found in the fact that there has been an absence of due diligence in enforcing the claim for wages. And claims for general average against a cargo upon which the master has a possessory lien rank before bottomry bonds. As regards necessaries, those who have supplied foreign ships with necessaries have a lien for their claim,8 1 The Constancia, 4 No. of Ca. 285. 2 The Dowthorpe, 3 W. Rob. 73 (81). 3 The Edward Oliver, L. R. 1 Ad. 379; 36 L. J. Ad. 13; The Daring, L. R. 2 Ad. 260; 37 L. J. Ad. 29; The Eugenie, L. R. 4 Ad. 123; 29 L. T. N. S. 314. The Salacia, Lush. 545. 5 The Union, Lush. 89; 1 Asp. M. C. N. S. 563. The Hope, 28 L. T. N. S. 287; The Mary Ann, 9 Jur. 94. 7 The Cargo et Galam, Br. & L. 167. 8 The Two Ellens, L. R. 4 P. C. 160; 41 L. J. Ad. 33; The Ella A. Clerk, Br. & L. 32; 32 L. J. Ad. 11. |