case robert buck appellant sir thomas Rawlinson respondent that February Mews  dig thirteen see m s a S the owner of a ship let it out to fraught and by the  charter party it be agree that no fraught shall be pay to the owner until six  day after the ship shall be return to the port of London and make a full  delivery of her lade but the master may detain the impress money and if the  ship shall be lose in her voyage the master and owner shall not expect any  other satisfaction than the impress money for the fraught and demurrage of the  ship the ship be lose and upon a question who be liable to pay the seaman wage  it be hold that the master be liable in the first instance as have hire they  but that he have his remedy against the owner in December the respondent and  one Sedgwick since decease as part owner of a ship call the royal James and  mary and the appellant as captain of that ship enter brown into a charter  party with the east India company for make a voyage with the say ship to the  east Indies and it be thereby inter alian agree that the governor and company  be not to pay the owner any fraught until six day after the say ship shall  return to the port of London and make a full delivery of her lade into the  company warehouse but the master may detain the impress money and that if the  ship shall be lose in her voyage the master and owner shall not expect any  other satisfaction than the impress money for the fraught and demurrage of the  ship the impress money be pound and the captain have hire seaman to navigate  the ship for her say voyage do by the direction of the owner take bind from  those seaman respective to himself in the penalty of pound that they shall  riot demand any wage more than the impress money until the ship arrival at the  port of London the ship accord proceed on her voyage and have deliver part of  her outward bind cargo at fort saint George she sail from thence with the  residue for Bengal but in go up that river be by the negligence of the pilot  unfortunate lose upon the captain return to England a suit be commence against  he in the admiralty court by the seaman for the payment of their wage for the  outward bind voyage and the owner have refuse to defend he against this suit  he exhibit his bill in the court of chancery against both they and the seaman  for a injunction and relief and for payment of pound as due to he for his own  wage and pound S d which he have during the voyage advance to the seaman for  clothes c a injunction be at first grant but it be afterward dissolve by Lord  chancellor summer his lordship declare that he can not stop the seaman proceed  for their wage and that if they recover against the plaintiff he have his  remedy against his owner the suit in the admiralty court now go on the captain  make the best defence he be capable of against it and particular insist on and  give in evidence the bind which the seaman have enter into not to demand any  far wage until the ship return to the port of London but that court declare  these bind to be unjust and void in law and therefore give sentence against  the captain for as the amount of the seaman wage for the outward bind voyage  and which sum he be accord oblige to pay on the that of June the cause in  chancery be hear before the Lord reeper wright when his lordship declare his  opinion that the plaintiff by stale the charter party and take the bind from  the seaman have bar himself from any right to his wage or have any  satisfaction from the owner in respect of the money which he have be compel to  pay the seaman by the decree of the admiralty court and therefore order the  bill to stand dismiss brown but the plaintiff have apply for a rehear the  cause be accord brown er p ingly reheard on the d of may when his lordship be  please to affirm his former decree with this addition that it shall be without  prejudice to the plaintiff bring a new bill for the impress money or his  proceed at law or in the admiralty for the same from both these decree the  plaintiff appeal insist r Buckby that he have no manner of interest in the  fraught or cargo of the ship and be to have have nothing more than bare wage  for his voyage in case the ship have return safe but in that case the benefit  of the fraught to the amount of near pound will have belong to the owner who  therefore ought to pay the seaman accord to the reason of the common maxim  that fraught be the mother of wage that though in all case the captain of the  ship who hire the seaman be liable to pay they yet it be never know except in  this particular case but that he have his remedy against the owner to recover  of they whatever wage he have be force to pay that the appellant have do no  act to waive or relinquish this right for as to his join in the charter party  it be a mere matter of form and never require where the captain have no  interest in the ship or fraught but by the east India company nor be there any  thing in this instrument which can exclude the appellant from his wage or  deprive he of any right that he have before  and as to the seaman bind they be  take by the direct and for the benefit of the owner and therefore ought not to  be make use of by they against the appellant just demand on the other side it  be contend S Dodd that the appellant alone hire the seaman and not the owner  nor do they in any shape concern themselves in it and therefore by law the  appellant only ought to pay they that neither the seaman or the appellant can  by law claim any wage because the ship never return and in all case where the  owner lose both ship and fraught no wage can be claim by the seaman but what  put the matter beyond all dispute be that the appellant by the charter party  and the seaman by their bind have agree not to have or demand any wage unless  the ship return to the port of London and deliver her homeward bind cargo but  which be never do but after hear counsel in this appeal it be order and  adjudge that the two order of dismission therein complain of shall be reverse  and that the party shall be at liberty to bring their appeal from the court of  admiralty to a court of delegate jour vol p