Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/353

 THE FRANK G. POWLEB. 339 �" In that case there was a bottomry bond bef ore and after the collision, and the court held that the claim for damage in a proceeding in rem must be pre- ferred to the flrst bondholder, but was not entitled against the second bond- holder, to the increased value of the vessel by reason of repairs effected at his cost. The interest of the first bondholder taking efEect from the pexlod when his lien attached, he was, so to speak, a part owner in interest at the date of the collision, and the ship in which he or others were interested was liable to its value at that date for the injury done, without reference to his claim." �I think the same principle is applicable to a prior lienholder, who, by the tort of the master and mariners, has become, so to speak, a part owner in the vessel. His property, the vessel, though not by his own voluntary act, has been used in commerce. That use was not tortious as to him. It is subject in that use to all ordinary marine perils. One of those marine perils is that it may become liable to respond to another party injured by the negligence of the master and mariners. No exception to the liability of the vessel, exempting the interests of parties interested in the ship, has been established by authority. To create such exceptions would greatly impair and weaken the security against negligent navigation, which the rule of liability of the vessel is at least partly designed to promote. Since the act of congress, paesed in 1851, limiting the liability of ship-owners, their personal liability is in most cases of marine tort unavailable. That act itself implies that by the rule of the maritime law the party injured by a collision or other tort of the master and mariners has an uriquestioned lien on the vessel in solido. In The America, ut supra, Judge Hall says: �"In short, all parties except seamen, holding ordinary maritime liens upon a vessel, are to some extent treated as though they had a proprietary interest in the ship; and their interests, whatever they may be, are subject to all liens which the necessities of the ship, or a collision caused by the carelessness or misconduct of those in charge, may subsequently impose." �For the reasons above stated, I think this is the true rule of the maritime law ; and, applying it to the present case, the interest or lien of libellants Conway and others in the vessel was not exempt from becoming liable, like all other interests in the tug, to the lien of the party subsequently sufiering damage by the tort of the master. The case has thus been considered without reference to the circumstance that the libellants Conway and others had an opportunity to libel the tug before she left this port upon the towing voyage, out of which the second cause of damage arose. While this failure to arrest the vessel was not laches operating to forfeit their lien, it yet gives the subse- ��� �