546 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.

the table, upon certain terms contained in the contract between
him and them; but it does not appear when they acquired this
knowledge, or that they were willing or agreed, that their right
to look to the vessel and owners should be destroyed by it.
With regard to the rest of the crew, there is not, in my opinion,
any competent evidence that they had any knowledge whatever
of this contract between the owners'and the captain.

It seems to me impossible to say, looking to the scrupulous
suspicion with which contracts and stipulations with seamen
are watched by the courts, for the purpose of affording them
that protection which from their improvident habits they but too
frequently require, that they should, upon such proof, be con-
strued out of the must important security for their hard earned
wages. Jibbott, 722, note 11, and 745, note 11; Nickerson vs.
Schooner Monsoon, 5 Law Reporter, 416.

My opinion then is, that the seamen in this case have a lien
on the proceeds of the vessel, and are entitled to a preference
over the other creditors.

This disposes of claims from No. 11 to 25, inclusive, and of
No. 35, all of which are for seamen's wages.

Another class of creditors who have come in for payment
out of this fund, are those who have furnished supplies for the
vessel, but they claim only to be general creditors, the supplies
having been furnished in the home port.

That for the necessary supplies for a vessel, furnished by or-
der of the master, the owner is liable, seems to be settled, and
when he seeks to escape such liability, he must make out, by
satisfactory proofs, the facts upon which he claims the exemp-
tion. If he insists that he is not liable, he must show that the
credit was given to others; as, by similar proof, the master
also may avoid a responsibility which generally rests upon him
as well as upon the owner. Abbott, 168, 169; 3 Kent's Corn.,
133, note 6.

If the owner can make out, by evidence, that the credit was
given to- the master alone, for such supplies, if it appears there
was a special promise taken from him and relied upon, the
owner would not be liable; and on the other hand, the master