case osman against well and other seaman employ in the river Thames in the  outfit of a ship may sue in the admiralty for their wage although from a  disagreement between the owner they be discharge while lie in the river and  although the voyage for which they be hire be never perform S c Mod S c ld ray  S c Mod Mr Whitaker move for a prohibition to the admiralty for libel against  the body of a ship in the river Thames for mariner wage and that have never be  extra corpus comitatus the suggestion be that a shipwright be in treaty with  the captain for the sale of the ship and as a trial of a ship it be usual for  the captain to go on board and to bring mariner with he and to employ they  about the ship and then to launch her c afterward they disarm before the  property be alter and the workmanship be remove from the ship and the hull  return to the shipwright the question in this case now be whether it be within  the reason and rule of mariner wage the ship not be benefit by the man work  and the court at first think it somewhat difficult and order it to be speak to  again this term do you common sergeant then argue that a prohibition ought not  to go for that the libel be direct for seaman wage and seven or eight of they  join in the suit and although the voyage be prevent by the disagreement  between the shipwright and the master yet upon account of the intend voyage  the seaman come in as mariner in order to a voyage and the disagreement  between the party shall not prejudice the seaman for they shall not be drive  to their action at law where they must several sue upon the contract modern  report Mr air say if a prohibition do not go it will be of very ill  consequence to builder but the court answer that when the builder credit the  master with the ship a see Buxton v she vezey a he ought to take a bind to  indemnify it against the mariner wage b see clay v snelgrave ld ray b then be  object that there ought to have be a voyage to be a foundation for the  Admiraltys jurisdiction because the libel say for work do at sea he cite a  case in keb where a prohibition be grant for libel against a ship for tackle  buy in the Thames suppose in the suggestion infra corpus comotatus modern  report er p but the court hold that prohibition to be upon the contract and  not like this case then he cite the case of coke v crotchet c lev c where a  prohibition be pray to stay a suit in the admiralty for mariner wage upon  suggestion that the suit be find upon a charterparty make at land and not upon  the high sea d salk vent stram ld ray burr and the statute Geo c S d but the  prohibition be deny the suit be for mariner wage which accrue due for their  labour do at sea and the charter and contract make upon land be only to  ascertain they but though in this case there be no work do all sea yet  inasmuch as upon the face of the libel it appear the suit be for seaman wage  and for the indulgence due to mariner all the court be of opinion the  admiralty have a jurisdiction and so deny a prohibition which be a strong case  than the case in levinz above cite e see the case of clay v Sudgrave salk read  v chapman stram rag v king stram Wheeler v Thompson stram Ross v walker Wilson  how v nappier burr e