28 FEDERAL _REPOR'1QER. p
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, I.Black, 522; The -K*i#m.baZl, 3 Wall. 37; The Bird of Para-
dise, 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; ibut, whether
valid or not, it is difficult to see why taking additional security by way
of mortgage on the vessel should bepresumed of itself to be a waiver of
the lien given by the maritime law, In the Endings made it is not de-
nied that Christopher .has a maritime lien for his advances, but it is held
that such lien under the equities of this case ought to bepostponed in favor
of those having as security only maritime liens. 2
2. As to Henry Morton2s claims;" He was the president of the incorpo-
rated company owning the vessel, and as such he was one of her man-
agers, and actively participated in the management. As he was presi-
dent 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 shareholderor not. He is now, and was when the ves-
V sel 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 .
5 paid up at least) are charged with the debts of the company. The rec-
‘ ord does not show that the shares now held by him are paid up, but the
evidence ratherinegatives 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 ad-
vances 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 toamaritime lien on the steamer Queen
of St. Johns are well founded, thenthat 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 mana-»
gers 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.