26 issued or other transfer made on the books of the company. It further appears that in February, 1886, Henry Morton acquired from W. R. Kemper 100 shares of the stock of the said company, by transfer in the stock-book and new issue of certificates, of date February 16, 1886, receipted for by Henry Morton, February 26, 1886. (10) That after the transfer of said steam-boat to the Favorite Navigation Company and up to December 16, 1884, the said boat received additional machinery, outfitting, work, and labor, looking to her preparation to run in the St. Johns river, Florida, which machinery, outfitting, etc., were paid for with sums advanced and obligations assumed by Frank Morton, Henry Morton, and W. R. Kemper, but for what amount does not appear; that from and after December 16, 1884, when the boat left Cincinnati on her trip to St. Johns river, and up to the time she was libeled, during which time said boat had a run of ill luck and delays, constantly needing advances and frequently needing repairs and once requiring radical changes, the expenses of said boat were met by moneys advanced and obligations assumed and debts contracted by said Frank Morton, Henry Morton, and W. R. Kemper, generally acting as president and directors of the Favorite Navigation Company, Frank Morton and Kemper being also respectively master and purser of the boat; that subsequent to December 16, 1884, and while the said steamer was away from her home port, Henry Morton, at the domicile of the owner and the home port of the steamer, made advances to relieve the needs of the said steamer in moneys and supplies to the amount, principal and interest, of $11,266.41, for which he from time to time took notes, payable in four months from date, signed "Steamer Queen of St. Johns, per W. R. Kemper, Purser, Frank M. Morton," except for one amount, $1,880.97, January 1, 1886, he took a note payable on demand for funds used in construction at 10 per cent. interest, signed "Steamer Queen of St. Johns & Owners, per W. R. Kemper, Purser, Frank M. Morton, Master," and except for one amount of $326.98, for which a note was given July 21, 1885, to McIlvain & Spergel, signed "Str. Queen of St. Johns & Owners, Favorite Navigation Company, by Frank M. Morton, Treasurer and Master," which note was indorsed by Henry Morton and by him paid at maturity; that subsequent to December 16, 1884, both Frank M. Morton and W. R. Kemper made advances to relieve the needs of said steamer in large amounts, the latter taking notes for his advances, signed by Henry Morton, president Favorite Navigation Company, and Frank M. Morton, master; that nearly all of the advances made by said Henry Morton, Frank M. Morton, and W. R. Kemper, after December 16, 1884, were made after the said steamer had left Cincinnati, and to meet the necessities of said steamer, and were made individually by the respective parties, and constitute debts of the Favorite Navigation Company, as well as of the steamer Queen of St. Johns; that Henry Morton, during the whole period covered by the supplies which he advanced to said steamer, and which he claims to have created a maritime lien on said steam-boat, was the president of the corporation which owned it, and constituted, with his son, who was the master of the boat during this period, and with Kemper, the secretary of the organization, and who was also the purser of the steamer, the board of directors of the corporation, vested with the powers hereinbefore mentioned. (11) That shortly after the Queen of the St. Johns' arrival upon the waters of the St. Johns, and while being in the port of Jacksonville, Florida, the respondents in this case other than John G. Christopher furnished to the said steamer the supplies as set up in their several libels; that the said supplies were necessary, and that the master had no other means in the emergency thus put upon him than to purchase supplies from the said respondents, as shown in their several accounts, and that they were purchased on the credit of the steamer. (12) That while said steamer was in said port of Jacksonville the respondent, John G. Christopher, also furnished supplies and made advances of which the steamer stood in need, amounting to the sum of $11,422.69; that as to a large part of these advances, amounting to the sum of $10,306, consisting of money which was applied to paying the arrears of seamen's wages and purchasing machinery for the boat, the said Christopher took notes on time secured by mortgages of the said steam-boat, which mortgages were executed to him by the master and purser of the steamer, which, however, were never recorded, except in the clerk's office, Duval county, Florida; that the said Henry Morton, the president, did not join in the execution of the mortgages, but knew of their execution, and disbursed a part of their proceeds, in purchasing machinery for the boat. (13) That the following named parties made advances to the steamer Queen of St. Johns, for which they filed libels in the district court, and for which decrees were made in their favor in the following amounts, respectively, towit: The Alabama Coal & Coke Company, $111.17; Henry Bryant, $53.19; J. S. Wright, $6.50; McCan, Given & Smith, $6.80; Alexander B. Stevens, $15; A. P. Taft. $56; J. E. Merrill & Bro., $102.28; Buchanan & Dalaporte, $23; Gillen & Haywood, $13.20; W. R. Lombeck, $546; W. R. Kemper, $1,456; H. R. Duval, $100,--which amounts were decreed by said district court to be paid out of the proceeds of the sale of the steamer Queen of St. Johns now in the registry of this court, and which decrees were not appealed from, and the amounts due are not disputed in this court. (14) That there is due to the following named libelants for advances to the steamer Queen of St. Johns the following amounts, respectively, to-wit: E. C. Pickett, $144.37; R. B. Hilliard, $74.18; Wightman & Christopher, $781.79; Drew, Hazeltine & Livingston, $197.46; Geo. F. Drew & Co., $976.69; Henry Clark, $292.70; F. E. Smith, $104.28; John G. Christopher, $1,116.69,-which amounts are debts of the Favorite Navigation Company, owners, and constitute a maritime lien of the proceeds of the steamer Queen of St. Johns now in the registry of the court. (15) That the steamer Queen of St. Johns was sold by the United States marslial, after monition and upon default, for the sum of $12,000, which sum, less certain payments to seamen by consent and the costs of the district court, is now in the registry of this court, and amounts to the sum of $9,952.85. And the court finds as conclusions of law: (1) That the decrees of the district court, not appealed from as set forth in the thirteenth finding of facts, should be paid from the funds in the registry of the court. (2) That the maritime liens declared and found in fourteenth finding of facts should be paid from the funds in the registry of the court. (3) That the remaining funds in the registry of the court, after paying the costs of the district court and the marshal's costs, should be paid to John G. Christopher, libelant herein, on account of his claim for advances made and moneys loaned to the steamer Queen of St. Johns. (4) That the costs of this court on appeal should be paid by Henry Morton Horace Bisbee, for libelant, Henry Morton. A. W. Cockerill & Son, for libelant, John G. Christopher. PARDEE, J. In explanation of the conclusions of law it is proper to say: 1. As to the claim of John G. Christopher. There is no doubt that the advances made by Christopher were to a vessel away from her home port in necessitous circumstances. They were applied to the use of the vessel, and were made on the credit of the vessel. Had no time notes and mortgages been taken, there would be no question that a maritime. lien resulted for these advances and supplies. It has been frequently decided that taking a note and giving time will not necessarily release the maritime lien resulting from supplies furnished a vessel. See The St. Lawrence, 1 Black, 522; The Kimball, 3 Wall. 37; The Bird of Paradise, 5 Wall. 545; The Alabama, 22 Fed. Rep. 449; The Gen. Meade, 20 Fed. Rep. 923. The mortgages taken by Mr. Christopher were executed by the master and purser, and are of doubtful validity; but, whether valid or not, it is difficult to see why taking additional security by way of mortgage on the vessel should be presumed of itself to be a waiver of the lien given by the maritime law. In the findings made it is not denied that Christopher has a maritime lien for his advances, but it is held that such lien under the equities of this case ought to be postponed in favor of those having as security only maritime liens. 2. As to Henry Morton's claims. He was the president of the incorporated company owning the vessel, and as such he was one of her managers, and actively participated in the management. As he was president and so acted, he is under the charter estopped from denying that he is, and was during the term of his presidency, a shareholder in the company, so that it is immaterial to inquire whether at certain specified periods he was a shareholder or not. He is now, and was when the vessel was libeled, a shareholder, and as such shareholder he was a part owner in reality, if not technically. Neither as manager nor as part owner should he have a lien to the prejudice of outside lienholders. Besides as a shareholder under the charter his shares (to the extent they are not paid up at least) are charged with the debts of the company. The record does not show that the shares now held by him are paid up, but the evidence rather negatives such full payment. Again, Henry Morton did not make advances in a foreign port, although the vessel to which the advances were made was in a foreign port. He himself made all his advances while he was at the home port and was managing for the owners. It is well settled that advances and supplies made to a vessel in her home port are presumed to be made on the credit of the owners, and no maritime lien results. The record of this case shows that Frank Morton and W. R. Kemper have equally good claims as Henry Morton, and if the pretensions of Henry Morton to a maritime lien on the steamer Queen of St. Johns are well founded, then that vessel, worth about $12,000, came into the admiralty court burdened with secret liens in favor of the president and directors of the Favorite Navigation Company, owner, to the amount of over $20,000, and yet these three parties were the managers of the vessel, and the practical owners of four-fifths of her. If such liens were to be allowed in a court of admiralty, it would open the door to fraud and collusion to such an extent that no safety would exist for any bona fide furnisher of supplies to a needy vessel in a foreign port. THE L. L. LAMB. (District Court, E. D. Michigan. June 1, 1887.) 1. SEAMEN'S WAGES-LIEN ON SHIP-CONTRACT WITH CHARTERER-WAIVER. Where the vessel was chartered for a wrecking expedition, to be accompanied by the owner and master, but the crew to be paid by the charterers; held, that the lien on the ship was not waived by the seamen because they knew of the contract with the charterers and hired to them. It requires some express agreement by the seamen to serve on the personal credit of the charterer, or else a state of facts from which that intention must necessarily be implied. 2. SAME CONCEALMENT OF FACTS BY MASTER OR OWNER. If the master and owner know that the charterers are insolvent and do not disclose that fact to the seamen at the time of engaging them for the charterers, the concealment is a fraud upon them, and any agreement to release the lien on the ship would be disregarded by the court. In Admiralty. Chas. K. Dodge and Edward McNamara, for libelant. HAMMOND, J. John Buzzard was owner and master of the schooner L. L. Lamb, and the libelants were for several months prior to the disputed transactions involved in this suit the crew of that vessel. He chartered her to McMorran & Reynolds at $15 a day from the eighth day of June, 1886, for a wrecking expedition to Lake Superior; they "to furnish provision and men, (except the master and mate,) all wrecking gear, pay all tow-bills and wages, except master's and mate's, repair all damage they may do except natural wear and tear and excepting her being wrecked or disabled." The schooner went to the lake to work upon a sunken steamer accompanied by a tug, Buzzard going as master and his son as mate. There were some 20 or 25 men employed by the charterers to go upon this expedition, some of them being seamen and others not. She was gone about three months, and was employed in taking out railroad iron, or lying by to receive it from a lighter, sometimes sailing out to the wreck and sometimes remaining in the port near by, during which not much was done in the line of a seaman's duty except to take care of the vessel, wet her down, keep her sails in condition, scrape masts, etc. On the return of the schooner the three libelants arrested her upon this libel for wages at $1.25 per day for each of them.. According to Buzzard's contention and proof he paid off these three men, who had been his crew for some months, on the day of the charter-party, and they then hired to the "wrecking party," as the other men did, and were to look to that concern for their wages and not to him. According to the contention and proof of the libelants they were hired as seamen and were continued as the crew of the schooner by Buzzard himself, but were also to help the wreckers in their work, which they did. It seems from the proof that the "wrecking expedition" was a venture of two insolvent persons named Merriman and Fowler, who were without credit, so that Buzzard would not trust them for the price agreed upon; and they had McMorran & Reynolds (whom Buzzard was willing to take "as security") become the charterers in the writing, and therefore under the contract responsible to Buzzard; but Merriman & Fowler were the real charterers and managed the expedition. As might have been expected, these insolvents did not pay any of the men, at least that is the inference, since every one who testifies in the case says he has not received any money, and the libelants insist on the security of a lien upon the schooner for their wages. To this they are entitled, even upon Buzzard's own testimony, for it is not at all pretended that these libelants especially agreed to release their lien upon the vessel or to look solely to the charterers for their wages, but only that such is the legal effect of the contract as implied from the circumstances. But that is a mistake. The maritime or admiralty law does not permit any such implication from the proven circumstances, as against seamen for their wages, whatever it may do as to supplies or repairs or the like, as to which no opinion need be now expressed. To seamen the law secures a lien on the ship unless they especially contract otherwise. The proof therefore must show not only that they knew of the charter-party and of the stipulation that the charterers were to be responsible for the seamen's wages, but also that they agreed that they would accept service alone upon the personal credit of the charterer, and not look to the ship for a lien. If they do not so agree the lien remains whether the regular owner relinquishes his control to the charterer or remains wholly or partially in possession, either on his own account or as the agent of the charterer, and whether the charterer be the owner for the voyage or charter term or only a contractor for the ship's services, and be the terms of the charter-party what they may. That is to say, a personal liability of the owner for the wages, qua owner, or as master, one or both, is not at all essential to the lien on the vessel, but that may and does arise just as well out of the personal liability of the charterer, for the seamen's wages, whether he be the owner pro hac, or only a mere contractor in the enterprise; and the lien is not released or surrendered by the seamen unless they consent to look solely to the personal liability of the charterer. Or, to put it in another way, the lien on the vessel for seamen's wages always exists, unless they waive or release it knowingly and intentionally, and there is not any intimation in the proof that these men did that. Another matter may be mentioned here. A court of admiralty will not tolerate such sharp practice against seamen as that which this master and owner confesses he attempted against these men, who had been his faithful crew, and whom he wished to stay by him in this expedition, as he concedes in his testimony. His pretense is that they agreed to hire to Merriman & Fowler and not to him, although he made the contract for them, but at their request, he says. They never spoke to Fowler or Merriman, but it is pretended that they heard the contract that be made in their behalf, being near enough to hear, "unless they were very deaf," the witness says. But it turns out that Merriman & Fowler were so utterly worthless as paymasters that the master and owner would not |