what different conditions, a one-year rule has appeared. The safe method is to be prompt and diligent in collecting liens against a ship; delay is always dangerous and there may be no other financial responsibility. This course is also for the best interests of the shipowner; interest and costs accumulate rapidly where the liens are enforced by the courts.

In the case of the Marjorie, 151 Fed. 183, above cited, a private yacht was libeled in Baltimore on account of coal furnished her in Norfolk nearly a year previously. She spent that time voyaging up and down the coast, putting in at various ports and when libeled had been laid up for the winter. She had not been in Norfolk subsequent to the occasion on which the coal was furnished. About six months after the coal was furnished she was sold to a new owner, who, finding no lien on record against her, paid the full purchase price. The Court held:

As commercial enterprise would be vexatiously incommoded and the free circulation and disposal of vessels prevented if such liens, which are not required by law to be made manifest by public registration, were allowed to lie dormant for an indefinite period, the courts have uniformly held, where the rights of bona fide purchasers will be injuriously affected if it is allowed to prevail, that the lien is lost if there has been long delay, and there has been reasonable opportunity to enforce it. The diligence required is usually measured by the opportunity of enforcement. In nearly all of the cases where the courts have held the lien to be lost and where there has been change of possession, there has been unreasonable delay on the part of the creditor in availing himself of the opportunities of enforcing his lien.

In the case under consideration the libel was filed within less than a year. The yacht had been sailing from port to port, and never came within the jurisdiction of the port where the supplies were furnished. The claim was a small one and hardly justified the employment of a detective to follow her wanderings. The lien was asserted as soon as the yacht was found. . . . The law is well settled that liens of this nature must be sustained if there has been reasonable diligence in asserting them. A long line of decisions shows that a delay of a year in circumstances such as are disclosed by the testimony is not unreasonable, and to lay down any other rule would tend to unsettle the law and to disturb the credit which in the interest of commerce must be extended to ships for supplies when away from their home ports to enable them to continue their voyages, a credit only given upon the faith that they have a lien upon the ship.

7. Recording Liens on "Preferred Mortgage" Vessels.The Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (Sec. 30, Subsection G. See

Appendix), provides that any one claiming a lien on an American ship which is subject to a "preferred mortgage" as defined in that Act (see Chapter X, infra) may record a notice of his lien with the Collector of Customs at the port of documentation, and upon the discharge of the indebtedness, shall file a certificate to that effect. A lienor who has recorded his lien is entitled to notice of any proceeding for the foreclosure of a preferred mortgage. This provision is intended to enable the lienor to come in and protect his interest.

8. Limited to Movable Things.- These liens arise only upon movable things engaged in commerce and navigation. They cannot exist in anything which is fixed and immovable and not the subject of maritime commerce or navigation. Thus they will subsist in vessels, rafts and cargoes but not upon a bridge or a ship totally out of commission (Rock Island Bridge, 6 Wall. 213; Pulaski, 33 Fed. 383). The lien has been sustained against a dredge. (Atlantic, 53 Fed. 607).

9. Priorities. Important priorities exist among maritime liens and these are adjusted when the ship is sold in admiralty to satisfy her debts. The purchaser at an admiralty sale, as elsewhere stated, takes the ship free of all existing liens; the proceeds of the sale are distributed among the lienors according to their priorities, after deducting costs and expenses.

Liens for torts take precedence over all prior liens, and the later lien for tort will be preferred to an earlier if there has been an absence of diligence in enforcing it. The John G. Stevens, 170 U. S. 113, is the leading case on the priority of liens against the offending vessel for torts committed by her. Mr. Justice Gray held:

But the question we have to deal with is whether the lien for damages by the collision is to be preferred to the lien for supplies furnished before the collision.

The collision, as soon as it takes place, creates, as security for the damages, a maritime lien or privilege, jus in re, a proprietary interest in the offending ship, and which, when enforced by admiralty process in rem, relates back to the time of the collision. The offending ship is considered as herself the wrongdoer, and is herself bound to make compensation for the wrong done. The owner of the injured vessel is entitled to proceed in rem against the offender, without regard to the question who may be her owners, or to the division, the nature, or the extent of their interests in her. With the relations of the

owners of those interests, as among themselves, the owner of the injured vessel has no concern. All the interests existing at the time of the collision in the offending vessel, whether by way of part ownership, of mortgage, of bottomry bond, or of other maritime liens for repairs or supplies, arising out of contract with the owners or agents of the vessel, are parts of the vessel herself, and as such are bound by and responsible for her wrongful acts. Any one who had furnished necessary supplies to the vessel before the collision, and had thereby acquired, under our law, a maritime lien or privilege in the vessel herself, was, as was said in The Bold Buccleugh [7 Moore P. C. 267] before cited, of the holder of an earlier bottomry bond, under the law of England, "so to speak, a part owner in interest at the date of the collision and the ship in which he and others were interested was liable to its value at that date for the injury done without reference to his claim [7 Moore P. C. 285]."

Liens arising out of matters of contract will be paid in substantially the following order :

Salvage.

Sailors' wages and wages of a stevedore when employed by

Advances of Money.

Insurance premiums (where a lien).
Mortgages not preferred.

It may be regarded as the grand rule of priority among maritime liens, that they are to be paid in the inverse order of the dates at which they accrued. Liens arising on a later voyage have priority over liens of an earlier voyage, and the later in point of time which have been for the preservation or improvement of the vessel, are to be paid in the inverse order of the dates at which they accrued, the later debt being paid in full before anything is allowed to the lien of an inferior grade. The reason for this is because the loan, or service, or whatever created the later lien has tended to preserve or improve the first lien-holder in security for his lien. He is to be preferred who contributed most immediately to the preservation of the thing.

An important qualification of the rule heretofore governing the priority of maritime liens on American vessels, is made by the Ship Mortgage Act of 1920 (Merchant Marine Act, see Appendix). By this act certain mortgages which conform to its

provisions are called "preferred mortgages" and are made maritime liens enforceable in admiralty. In the order of priority, a preferred mortgage lien comes next after liens arising out of tort, for wages of a stevedore when employed directly by the owner, operator, master, ship's husband, or agent of the vessel, for wages of the crew, for general average and for salvage. Liens for repairs, pilotage, towage, freight and charter hire come in subsequent to "preferred mortgages."

The subjects of liens for salvage, wages, pilotage and towage, advances, mortgages, freight and charter hire are discussed under the appropriate titles in this book.

10. Lien for Repairs and Supplies.- By act of Congress approved June 23, 1910, provisions were made which substantially changed the law as it existed theretofore. This act was repealed and reënacted with amendments by the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (see Appendix). The latter act (Sec. 30), representing the present state of the law, provides:

Subsection P. Any person furnishing repairs, supplies, towage, use of drydock or marine railway, or other necessaries, to any vessel, whether foreign or domestic, upon the order of the owner of such vessel, or of a person authorized by the owner, shall have a maritime lien on the vessel, which may be enforced by suit in rem, and it shall not be necessary to allege or prove that credit was given to the vessel. Subsection Q. The following persons shall be presumed to have authority from the owner to procure repairs, supplies, towage, use of drydock or marine railway, and other necessaries for the vessel: The managing owner, ship's husband, master, or any person to whom the management of the vessel at the port of supply is intrusted. No person tortiously or unlawfully in possession or charge of a vessel shall have authority to bind the vessel.

A person furnishing supplies or repairs to a vessel in the absence of her owners or temporary owners, and elsewhere than in her home port, and upon the order of the master, should inquire into the necessity for the supplies or repairs. If, upon reasonable inquiry, he finds that they are necessary, he may safely furnish them, relying on the credit of the vessel and upon his right to a maritime lien upon her. If reasonable inquiry fails to show any necessity, the supplier or repairer will not be entitled to a lien, even though the master gave the order.

In the case of the Valencia, 165 U. S. 264, the home port of the ship was Wilmington, North Carolina. She was plying between

New York and Maine. Coal was ordered for her in New York, not by the master, but by a steamship company doing business in New York whose relations to the vessel were not inquired into by the suppliers of the coal. If they had inquired, they would readily have learned that the steamship company was a charterer of the vessel and was bound by the charter party to "provide and pay for all coals." The coal was not paid for and the suppliers libeled the ship. In directing the libel to be dismissed the Supreme Court said:

Although the libellants were not aware of the existence of the charter party under which the Valencia was employed, it must be assumed upon the facts certified that by reasonable diligence they could have ascertained that the New York Steamship Company did not own the vessel, but used it under a charter party providing that the charterer should pay for all needed coal. The libellants knew that the steamship company had an office in the city of New York. They did business with them at that office, and could easily have ascertained the ownership of the vessel and the relation of the steamship company to the owners. They were put upon inquiry, but they chose to shut their eyes and make no inquiry touching these matters or in reference to the solvency or credit of that company. It is true that libellants delivered the coal in the belief that the vessel, whether a foreign or a domestic one, or by whomsoever owned, would be responsible for the value of such coal. But such a belief is not sufficient in itself to give a maritime lien. If that belief was founded upon the supposition that the steamship company owned the vessel, no lien would exist, because in the absence of an agreement, express or implied, for a lien, a contract for supplies made directly with the owner in person is to be taken as made "on his ordinary responsibility, without a view to the vessel as the fund from which compensation is to be derived." The St. Jago de Cuba, 9 Wheat. 409. And if the belief that the vessel would be responsible for the supplies was founded on the supposition that it was run under a charter party, then the libellants are to be taken as having furnished the coal at the request of the owner pro hac vice, without any express agreement for a lien, and in the absence of any circumstances justifying the inference that the supplies were furnished with an understanding that the vessel itself would be responsible for the debt incurred. In the present case, we are informed by the record that there was no express agreement for a lien, and that nothing occurred to warrant the inference that either the master or the charterer agreed to pledge the credit of the vessel for the coal.

We mean only to decide, at this time, that one furnishing supplies or making repairs on the order simply of a person or corporation acquiring the control and possession of a vessel under such a charter