TSEINTgRNATION AI..
875
THE INTERNATIONAL.
BoYLAN '11. THE INTERNATIONAL.
001111", S. D. Nf//D York. March 25, 1887·. 1. MARITIMBLIENB-SEAM.AN'S WAGBS-CJURTBRBR IN POSSESSION.
2.
A seaman's lien on the ship for his wages does not depend upon contract, but is fixea by the law as an incident to his lawful employment on board. He has the same .lien, therefore, when employed by a known charterer, who runs the vessel on his()wuaccount, as when employed by the ()wner, th()ugh the latter is not pers.onallyliable when the vessel is run by the charterer.
SOO-CA8E STATED-WAIVING LIEN-VOID CONTRACTS.
The respondent havingcharteted his vessel to a charterer for a Axed term, with the nght to nominate the captain and engineer, who were to be paid by the charterer, named the libelant as engineer; aM having explained to him fldlythe provisions of the charter, introduced him to the charterer, by whom he was employed. No express reference was made to the question of. lien, though the libelant UpderlitOOd that th.e charterer was to be his paymaster. Held, (1) tb.at the seaman hl'd. a lien for his wages, there being no. implied effect contract,ren,ouncing it; and, 8emble, (2) that an express contract worildbe held void in admiralty unless there were some corresponding ben· eilt to. the seaman to 11;,
In Admiralty. Hyland kZabriskie, ,for libelant. <Jharles Murray, for claimll,ut. BROWN, J. The libelant sues to recover 838, a balance. of wages claimed oy him for services as engineer of the steam-lighter International, from May to November, 1883. The lighter during this time was run by one Ballou, under a charter to him executed by the owner, who, by written contract, had fhe·right to name the engineer and captain; hut all wages were to be paid by the charterer, who to have possession, and run the boat on l:\is own account. The owner nominated ,the libelant as engineer, andcareflillly read and explained to him the provisionli of the charter, and thereupon introduced him to Ballou, by whom the libelant was employed. After six months, the charterer's business not being successful, the boat was surrendered to the owner, lE'aving some bills, including the above balanoe due to the engineer, unpaid. There were various other subsequent facts and circumstances, which I do not consider of material importance; since, upon the whole, it is sufficiently clear that :neither the libelant nor the owner,intended to waive or change their former legal rights or obligations. The only. question is whether, under such circumstancesj the engineer has a lien upon the vessel for his wages. Had this 'been a question of materials or supplies furnished ,by a material·man having knowledge of the terms of the charter, no lien upon ihe vessel woUld here have been sustained, unles.s.the supplies were furnished in a po'rt of distress, and were necessa,ry to enable the vessel to reach her owners, i. e. ,unless the supplies \Vere necessary to the ship
376,
FEDERAL REPORTER.
I
and her owners, and not merely to the charterer's business. The Prancis, 21 Fed. Rep. 715, 721; The Mary Morgan, 28 Fed. Rep. 196; The Norman, Id. 383; The Tu,rgot, 11 Prob. Div. 21, 23, 24. This results, however, from the fact:that in this country the general maritime law in reference to a lien for supplies has been only partially adopted, and that sllch a lien is' admitted, not as the legal incident to the mere furnishing, of supplies, but only upon special circumstances which jt is mcumbent upon the'matElriltl-man to prove as conditions of hislien,-su<lh,,fQT ofthe vessel from her home port; the"absence of her owner from the place wpere, ,the SUPpliefl are furnished" ot, if present, his agreement to the lien; the ship's necessity for supplies; and {he of a credit to the vessel to obtain them. Thete are no such conditions applicable to seamll.o'"Jien for wages. Ouqnaritime wages,confotms to the, general law of the seas, which gives seaman a lien 'U pDn the for his' wages, as Cleirac says, '''so long asa ,His servioe is rendered primarily to tMship; and,)J;l ,the view ofthe,D,lariti,me law, the ship is primarily liable.The lien arises, therefore,'ll.s:the legal incidElPtofhis service. It depetidupon contract,{77te Minerva, 1 flagg. 352,) but is'given by the general maritime law, whenever he is lawfully employed on board. Macl. Shipp. 248, 249. In the various European codes that recognize this lien, I find none that make any exception where the ship is in the possession of known charterers, by whom the seamen: are employed. French Code Com. § 191, sub. 6; Netherlands Code Com. §§ 313,451; Italian Code Coni; §§674,'536;German Code Com. § 757; 1 Des Jardin, Droit Com. Mar. § 13'3.", The Consulado, art. 289, in effect declares that the ship in such cases'Ib.ust make good her contracts, and the, owner must look to the charterer for his indemnity. , In many cases this lien has been sustatned against chartered vessels. The Montauk; 10 Ben. 455; The Samuel Ober, 15 Fed. Rep. 622; The Artisan, 9 Ben. 106; Flaherty v. Doane, 1 Low. 150; The Canton, 1 Spr. 437; The G.,C;Moms,2Abb.164,168; Hartv. 77teEnterprise, 3 Wkly. 'Notes Cas. 172. The libelant ill this case understood that the charterer, and not the owner, was to be his pay-master. Undoubtedly, the,refore, the owner was not persbllally liable, (Scottv.Failes, 5 Ben. 82;) but as the lien was the legal incident of thelibelll.llt's lawful employmentupon the ship, and his employment by the charterer was authorized by the owner, his 'right as against the ship is unaffected. The testimony does not show that any special 'reference was made to this lien in his conversation with the owner, nor any express exemption of her liability agreed on. Suchan exerhption would not, therefore, be inferred. The 10 Ben. 455. Theprt')cise question does not arise here as to what would have been the effect of an express contract waiving his lien, but such an agreement wOl'ildbeheld .!void ill courts of admiralty,' unless made upon some cor. responding benefit to him; because otherwise it is a stipulation highly , injurious, depriving the seamen of the security which the law annexes
a
'.mE.INTERNATIONALj
877
to their service as necessary to their due protection. Section 4535 of the Revised Statutes, as respects merchant seamen recognizes this general lien of seamen, and expressly declares that" no seaman shall, by any agreement other than is provided by this title, forfeit his lien upon the ship, or be deprived of any remedy for the recovery of his wages to which he would etherwise have been entitled.'l TM British Merchants' Shipping Act, § 182, is to the same effect. Macl. Shipp. 249, 744. These provisions are in accordance with the principleeofnumerou8 decisions in the admiralty courts, as respects the invalidityo(uJlUsual and injurious stipulations'in seamen's contracts. . The Sarah Jane; Blatchf. & H. 401; 406-414 j The :rJineroa, 1Hagg.352j Harden v. Gordon, 2 Mason, 541, 556; BrmJmv.LuJ),,2 Sum. 449,'450 j'l'he. San Marcos, 27 Fed. Rep. 567, 569 j TheH'1{}hw,nder, 1 Spr.510; The Sirocco, 7 Fed. ,Rep. 599. This rule, as respects the lien for seamen's wages, stands on the same soCaras respects ,a chartered vessel, as the lien ofsaNors, or of freighters, who have the same lien on a chartered ship as on one run by her owners, and whether"they' know of the charter or not. The Ch88i'U8, 2 Story, 93j Webb v. Peirce, 1 Curt. 107, 108; '!he Phebe, 1 Ware, 271j The May Queen,l Spr. 588,591; The T. A. Goddard, 12 Fed. Rep.174, 179; Richarchon v. Winsor, 3 Cliff. 406. . An impression seems to have prevailed to some extent that a contrary rUler as respeots chartered vesl:lels, had been adopted in this district in to liens for'wagefilj and this is, to some extent, sustained by a brief memorandum ina cause before my predecessor. Examination of the reported cases in this dil;itrict fails to discover any adjudication on thi'Ssubject, e:ltcept that in the case of The Fairpw,y, 1 Blatchf. & 136, where the decision turned, however, on the necessity of an mregard tp an unliquidated adventure, not at all here. The supposed rule waa questioned by BENEDle:r, J., in the case 9fThe Manta/uk, supra; and, in view of the decisions to the contrary, by many appeals to the eminent judges in other districts, and considering circuit court cannot be taken in most of the causes for seamen's wages, .I deem it lncumbent upon me to adopt the rule prevailing elsewhere, as both in accord with my own judgment, and conducive to a most desirable, if not essential, harmony in our maritime law. Decree for the libelant for$S8, and interest, without costa.
378·
THE' CARLOTTA.·
KING '11. THE CARLOTTA,
etc.
(Dutriot CQurt, E. D. NeW ·York.January 28, 1887.) l. 1rIA.RITIuLIElNs--cSIllA){AN'S W.AGES-SAIJ,.ING·YAI!TER.
2:
.
A sailing-Plaster has a lien for his wages. .
BA:ME-.-NllIGLIGENT DISCHARGE OF Ih1TIES-DISRATING.
Where libelant, sailing-master on the yacht C., brought suit to recover hi. wages as such, the defense being that he h.ad performed .his duties in so neg· lige.Qt a manner that his rate of wap:es should be the. rate paid a common sea.man, it was held that, though he had performed sowe of his duties in a negligent manner, it was not such negligence as should reduce his wages to the rate claimed by the defense. . .
8.
On the evidel;l()e, held, that libelant was Dot entitled to recover his traveling expenses.While going to and returning from the yacht.
EXPENSES.
!n Admiralty., Frederick for libelant. Carter « Ledyard, for claimants.. , .t... '
BENEDICT, Ji. i This is an action instituted by the libelant to enforce a lien against the yacht Carlotta, for his wages as sailing-master, and for his tl1l,Veling expenses while going from Boston to the Delaware breakwater to join the yacht, and while returning to New York from Fernandina, the his discharge. There is n6 dispute as to the time that· the libe)ant served on 'board the yacht as sailing-master, or as to the rate Ofwages at whichhe'shipped. The evidence furnishes no foundation for the claim,·so far as the: expenses of traveling are concerned. The' only question claiming relates to· the olaim. for wages. Attne time oIthe libelant's discharge at Fernandina, the owner of the yacht; who was also her mastel', tendered the libelant wages at the ride paid a common seaman; and he now contends that the rate of wages sl'roula be'the rate paid a .comtl.1ohseaman, uPOll 'the ground that the libelant was not competent to dis<;lhal'ge the dutiesofasailing-master, aad that he' was tatelesE! arid' negligent in the performance 'of those duties. Upon the evidence there is no room to contend that the libelant was incompetent to discharge the duties of a sailing-master. The proof is clear that he has often discharged those duties in a proper and seaman-like manner. But it is said that, if the libelant knew his duties, he neglected to perform them. The defense in the end came down to the proposition that the method in which the libelant kept his log deserves punishment by a reduction of his wages to the rate of It common seaman. It is evident that the libelant in entering the dead reckoning in the log made entries that were untrue. That, to use the expression of one of the witl1esses, the log I
Reported by Edward G. Benedict, Esq., of the New York bar.