« ПретходнаНастави »
III. Liens for a Master's Wages and Disbursements on
Ship’s Account (t). But such liens will not have priority over a subsequent salvage (u).
If the master be also a part owner, and order necessaries, the claim of the material man will have precedence of the master's claim for wages or disbursements (x). Further, the master may lose his lien by voluntarily accepting a bill of exchange on his owners (y). On the other hand, he, though a part owner, will have a lien on freight for his disbursements, made by him to enable the ship to earn it (x).
Where a shipmaster has by a bottomry bond bound himself, as well as the ship and freight, his lien for wages cannot be enforced as against the claim of the bondholder (a).
IV. Liens for Salvage, Towage, Pilotage, and Bottomry
Bonds. Such liens will be payable pari passu, except that bottomry bonds given subsequently to the performance of salvage, towage, or pilotage services, will have priority over any liens for such services; though they will not if given previously (6). V. Lien for Repairs.
The shipwright will have a lien for the cost of the repairs, but only subject to all other liens then existing on the vessel (©). However, for repairs done after the
c (t) The Jonathan Goodhue, Swa. Ch. 467; The Feronia, L. R., 2 524 ; The Mary Ann, L. R., 1 A. & E. 65. A. & E. 8.
(a) The Jonathan Goodhue, Swa. (u) The Gustaf, Lush. 506; 31 524. L. J., Ad. 207.
(6) The Selina, 2 Not. of Cas. 18; (2) The Jenny Lind, L. R., 3 The Gustaf, Lush. 506; 31 L. J., A. & E. 529.
Ad. 207; see Ch. XII. § 84, p. 143. (y) The Wm. Money, 2 Hagg. (c) The Gustaf, Lush. 506; 31 136.
L. J., Ad. 207; The Wasp, L. R., (3) Bristow v. Whitmore, 31 L. J., 1 A. & E. 367.
To what a lien extends.
arrest of the ship, the shipwright will have priority over a
The solicitor will have priority over claims for necessaries
A maritime lien, if once discharged, cannot be re-
Maritime liens declared by a foreign court to exist will be enforced. But it must appear from the proceedings of the foreign court, that the object of the foreign action was the sale of the ship and not a personal remedy against the owners or master ().
Questions as to the precedence of maritime liens and charges will be determined by the lex fori, and not by the law of the flag (i).
The priority of a lien may be lost as against other claimants against the same res, through laches or want of due diligence in enforcing it (k).
The court will, in the case of competing claimants, marshal the assets within its control so as to satisfy all of them, as far as possible. But to protect a bottomry
Foreign judgments as to liens.
Priority lost by laches.
(c) The Aline, 1 W. Rob. 111.
(d) The Heinrich, 41 L. J., Ad. 68.
(e) The Dowthorpe, 2 Not. of Cas. 264.
(f) The Constancia, 10 Jur. 845.
(9) The Wm. F. Safford, Lush. 69; The Vew Eagle, 4 Not. of Cas. 426; The Louisa, 6 Not. of Cas.
(h) The City of Mecca, 6 P. D. 106 (C. A.).
(i) The Union, 3 L. T., N. S. 280.
(k) The Saracen, 6 Moo. P. C. 56; The Bold Buccleugh, 7 Moo. P. C. 267; The Wm. F. Safford, Lush. 69.
creditor, the court will not leave the seamen to their common law right of action against the shipowners and the master personally for their wages, and deprive them of their lien, even when the owners and master are perfectly solvent (1)
Again, as between two or more defendants liable for the same claim, the court will apportion their liability if such a proceeding be practicable without injuring the creditor. Thus, where the assignee of the freight shares in the benefit, the shipowners will not be held liable for the whole
(1) The Arab, 5 Jur., N. S. 417.
(m) The Dowthorpe, 2 Not. of Cas. 264.
Liability for collision.
$ 89. WHERE two ships belonging to different owners come into collision, without the fault of the crew of either vessel, as where the collision is caused by inevitable accident or ris major, e.g. a storm, the owner of each vessel must bear any damage
his vessel sustains, the owner of the other vessel not being liable at all (a). The mere fact of one ship striking or going foul of another will not make her owners liable: there must be want of due diligence or skill, or some other fault (6). The skill or diligence required is ordinary and not extraordinary (c).
If the collision were occasioned through the fault of both vessels, the loss sustained by each vessel must be apportioned between their owners. Thus, the owner of one of the colliding vessels will be liable for half the loss sustained by the other (d).
If the collision be caused by the act of the injured party alone, he must bear the loss, and the other is not liable (a).
If the collision were due entirely to one vessel, the owner of the injured vessel can recover full compensation for the damage from the owner of the former (a); subject to the provisions of the statutes which limit the liability of ship
(a) Per Lord Stowell, in the case 9 Car. & P. 601. of The Woodrop-Sims, 2 Dods. 83; (c) The Thos. Powell v. The Cuba, recognized by House of Lords in 2 Mar. Law Cas., 0. S. 344. Haye v. Le Neve, 2 Shaw, Scotch (d) Ib. ; China Merchants' Steam Ap. Cas. 395; The Buckhurst, 6 P. Narigation Co. v. Bignold, 7 App. D. 152; 51 L. J., P. 10; 46 L. T. Cas. 512; 51 L. J., P. C. 92; 47 108 ; see "Cases (2) at end of L. T. 485; The Fanny M. Carvill, this ý; The Douglas, 7 P. D. 151. 2 Asp. M. C. 565; The Energy,
(6) The James Watt, 2 W. Rob. L. R., 3 A. & E. 48; The Milan, 270, 278; The Independence, 14 Lush, 388. Moore, P. C. 103; Sills v. Brown,
owners (e). Thus, he can recover compensation for the loss of a charterparty (e) or of freight in consequence of the collision (f).
If both vessels have been guilty of negligence, but one of them could, by the exercise of ordinary care, have avoided a collision, the blame will be attached solely to the latter, unless the other vessel infringed some one or other of the statutory provisions for the prevention of collisions (g). The fact that the collision would not have occurred, but for the fault of a third ship, will be no ground of defence.
In cases where a vessel could pursue one of two courses, and she elects the hazardous, and not the safe, course, she will be liable for the consequences thereof (h). Unnecessary alteration of the course of a ship, or her carrying wrong lights, will make her alone to blame for a collision caused thereby (i).
Even where a collision is caused by a vessel drifting, through being unmanageable or disabled, she will be held to blame if her condition were occasioned by the negligence of her crew, or by a previous collision for which she was to blame (j). But no liability will ensue in the case of a collision caused by a ship justifiably abandoned (k). (e) See $ 93, p. 162, post.
the Prevention of Collisions at Sea, (f) The Consett, 5 P. D. 229; 49 see Appendix. L. J., P. 24; 42 L. T. 33; 28 W. () Mayhew v. Boyce, 1 Stark. R. 307 (C. A.); see “ Cases” (5) at 423, 425. end of this $; The Star of India, (i) The Velocity, L. R., 3 P. C. 1 P. D. 466.
44; The Esk, ib. 436; see “Cases" (9) 36 & 37 Vict. c. 85, 8. 17; (3) at end of this $; The Carolus The Englishman, 3 P. D. 18; see Rotgers, 3 Hag. Ad. 343. “Cases" (6) at end of this ; Tuff () The Kjobenhavn, 2 Asp. M. C. v. Warman, 5 C. B., N. S. 573; 213; Seccombe v. Wood, 2 Moo, & Greenland v. Chaplin, 5 Ex. 243; Rob. 290; Lords, fc. of Romney Luxford v. Large, 5 C. & P. 421; Marsh v. Trinity House, L. R., 7 Radley v. London f. N. W. Rail. Co., Ex. 247. 1 App. Cas. 754; The Sisters, 1 (k) White v. Crisp, 10 Ex. 312 ; P. D. 117; The Bywell Castle, 4 Harmond v. Pearson, i Camp. 515. P. D. 219. For the Regulations for