The owner of a ship has a lien on the car go carried for the freight earned, whether reserved by a bill of lading or not; 4 B. & Ald. 630; Pickman v. Woods, 6 Pick. (Mass.) 248; Holmes v. Pavenstedt, 5 Sandf. (N. Y.) 97; Gracie v. Palmer, 8 Wheat. (U. S.) 605, 5 L. Ed. 699.
Where freight has been earned for the transportation of goods before the United States declares them forfeited for a fraudu lent custom house entry, and sells them, the freight has a lien on the proceeds, if the vessel owners were innocent; Six Hundred Tons of Iron Ore, 9 Fed. 595.
This lien is, at most, only a qualified mari time lien; see 1 Pars. Mar. Law 174, n. The lien exists in case of a chartered ship; Clarkson v. Edes, 4 Cow. (N. Y.) 470; 4 B. & Ald. 630; Gracie v. Palmer, 8 Wheat. (U. S.) 605, 5 L. Ed. 699; to the extent of the freight due under the bill of lading; 1 B. & Ald. 711; The Volunteer, 1 Sumn. 551, Fed. Cas. No. 16,991. But if the charterer takes possession and management of the ship, he has the lien; Pickman v. Woods, 6 Pick. (Mass.) 248; Clarkson v. Edes, 4 Cow. (N. Y.) 470; 4 M. & G. 502. No lien for freight attaches before the ship has broken ground; 1 B. & P. 634; Bailey v. Damon, 3 Gray (Mass.) 92. But see, as to the damages for removing goods from the ship before she sails, 2 C. & P. 334; Bailey v. Damon, 3 Gray (Mass.) 92.
No lien exists for dead freight ; 3 M. & S. 205. The lien attaches only for freight earn ed; 3 M. & S. 205; Drinkwater v. The Spar tan, 1 Ware 149, Fed. Cas. No. 4,085. The lien is lost by a delivery of the goods; Gring v. A Cargo of Lumber, 38 Fed. 528; The Giulio, 34 Fed. 909; but not if the delivery be involuntary or procured by fraud ; id. So it is inconsistent with its ex ercise; Pinney v. Wells, 10 Conn. 104; 4 B. & Ald. 50; as, by an agreement to receive the freight at a day subsequent to the entire delivery of the goods,—a distinction being, however, taken between the unloading or arrival of the ship, and the delivery of the goods; 14 M. & W. 794; Certain Logs of Ma hogany, 2 Sumn. 589, Fed. Cas. No. 2,559; Wallis v. Cook, 10 Mass. 510.
A third person cannot take advantage of the existence of such lien; 3 East 85. A
vendor, before exercising the right of stop page in transitu, must discharge this lien by payment of freight; Newhall v. Vargas, 15 Me. 314, 33 Am. Dec. 617; 3 B. & P. 42.
Master's Lien. In. England, the master had no lien, at common law, on the ship for wages, nor disbursements; 1 B. & Ald. 575 ; Reliance Marine Ins. Co. v. S. S. Co., 77 Fed. 317, 23 C. C. A. 183; but by the act of 1854 be has the same lien for his wages as a sea man ; and this may be enforced in the ad miralty courts of the United States; The Maggie Hammond, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 435, 19 L. Ed. 772; Covert v. The Wexford, 3 Fed. 577 ; The Pride of the Ocean, 7 Fed. 247 ; The Wexford, 7 Fed. 674. The district court may, but is Snot bound to exercise jurisdic tion in favor of a British subject against a British ship ; 22 Bost. L. Rep. 150. Its en forcement is only a question of comity ; The Maggie Hammond, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 435, 19 L. Ed. 772.
In the United States, he has no lien for his wages; Hopkins v. Forsyth, 14 Pa. 34, 53 Am. Dec. 513; Richardson v. Whiting, 18 Pick. (Mass.) 530; The Wyoming, 36 Fed. 493. This does not apply to one not master in fact; L'Arina v. The Exchange, Bee 198, Fed. Cas. No. 8,088. As to lien for disburse ments, see The Larch, 2 Curt. C. C. 427, Fed. Cas. No. 8,085 ; Hopkins v. Forsyth, 14 Pa. 34, 53 Am. Dec. 513. He may be substituted if he discharge a lien ; Bulgin v. Rainbow, Bee 116, Fed. Cas. No. 2,116; The Packet, 3 Mas. 255, Fed. Cas. No. 10,654. But he has a lien on the freight for disbursements ; Lane v. Penniman, 4 Mass. 91; Van Bokkelin v. Ingersoll, 5 Wend. (N. Y.) 315; for wages in a peculiar case; Drinkwater v. The Spart tan, 1 Ware 149, Fed. Cas. No. 4,085 ; and on the cargo, where it belongs to the ship owners ; Newhall v. Dunlap, 14 Me. 180, 31 Am. Dec. 41. He may, therefore detain goods against the shipper or consignee, even after payment to owner, if the master give rea sonable notice ; Lewis v. Hancock, 11 Mass. 72; Van Bokkelin v. Ingersoll, 5 Wend. (N. Y.) 315. But see 5 D. & R. 552. The master may retain goods till a contribution bond is signed; Newhall v. Dunlap, 14 Me. 180, 31 Am. Dec. 41.