HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0469 and id is 1 raw text is: THE JONATHAN GOODHUE
THE JONATHAN GOODHUE -(Jones, Master). December 22, 1859.-Wages of
foreign master-Bottomry debt-Priority-17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 191.-The
master of a foreign ship having, in the terms of a bottomry bond, bound himself as
well as the ship and freight, cannot enforce his lien for wages against the claim of
the bondholder. The Milford (ante, p. 362) confirmed. Semble, at mariner's
wages, earned before the execution of a bottomry bond, postponed to the bond.
[Considered, The Troubadour 1866, L. R. 1 Ad. & Ece. 302; The Edward Oliver,
1867, ibid. 382.]
This was an action by the master of the American ship Jonathan Goodhue,
praying payment of £550, the balance of his wages, out of the proceeds of ship and
freight remaining in the Court. It was opposed by the holders of a bottomry bond,
executed by the master now suing, on ship, freight and cargo, which had been
pronounced valid against ship and freight and invalid against the cargo (ante) : they
alleged that their claim amounted to £2868, 15s., besides interest ; that the proceeds
of ship and freight amounted only to £2221, 8s. 2d., and that they were entitled to
priority over the master's claim for wages, or, at [525] least, over his claim for wages
earned before the execution of the bond.
The Admiralty Advocate and Robinson for the bondholders.
Admitting that, according to The Milford (ante, p. 362), the master of a
foreign ship is entitled to sue for his wages in this Court, he cannot do so against
the holders of a bond which he has himself executed. The form of the bond shews
this conclusively. The master binds himself personally for the repayment of the
money borrowed on bottomry. No equitable construction can defeat an obligation
so absolute. The obligation is not a matter of form, it is of the essence of the con-
tract ; it occurs in- every bottomry bond, forms part of the security to the lender
for advancing his money, and operates as a safeguard to the owner that the master
shall not pledge his property without necessity. In Abbott on Shipping (10th
ed. p. 116), it is said, The remedy of the lender is against the master of the
ship. And in The William (ante, p. 346), where the master, who was also a
part-owner, had given a bond, this Court said, The master giving the bond becomes
a debtor to the lender in a double capacity, for both personal credit is pledged and
the ship is hypothecated : this dictum is not rendered inapplicable by the master,
in this case, not being a part-owner. The master has also, by the bond, which is
his own act and deed, pledged the freight to the lender without reservation ; it is
a violation of his contract now to claim a lien on the freight to satisfy his private
debt. He has, moreover, another remedy by personal action in his own forum
against his owners ; but the bondholders have no other source of payment. Even
if the bondholders have not an absolute preference over the master, they are entitled
to priority over his claim for wages earned previously to the execution of the bond
Abbott on Shipping (10th ed. pp. 532, 533) ; Selina (2 N. of C. 18).
Addams, Q.C., and Wambey for the master.
Seamen's wages have always been favoured by the Court; Madonna d'Idra
(1 Dods. 37); and by the Merchant Shipping Act masters have now the same
remedies as seamen. No distinction can be made between wages earned before
and wages earned after the bond ; the services of the master are continuous and
indivisible. There is no case in which a seaman's wages have been postponed to a
bond. The master does not curtail his own [526] rights by signing the bond. He really
signs in the interest of his owner and for his owner, and where an agent contracts
for his principal the principal alone is liable. The words of the bond, whereby the
master binds himself, are formal merely, and should receive an equitable construction.
It is notorious and manifest from the very term, that in bottomry transactions the
real security is thd bottom of the ship. But even if the master is personally re-
sponsible, it is not here but in a Court of Law ; and if not responsible here directly,
he cannot be made responsible indirectly. In point of fact, the master, when he
signs a bond, never intends to give up his remedy for his own wages ; and it would
be a hardship if the law took away his remedy from him. It would also be highly
injurious to commerce; for masters would be unwilling to take up money on
bottomry, although the interest of their owners required it.
Dr. Lushington: It is unfortunately incidental to this case that one of two
innocent parties must suffer. It is certainly a case prime impressionis ; none
similar, however, has ever come under the consideration of the Court.
1246
SWAB. 525.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0469&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)