clay versus snelgrave overrule mayor of London v Cox l r h l the master of a  ship can sue in the admiralty for his wage on a contract make on shore S C  salk holt Carth man r send for Str nor if he die on the voyage can his  personal representative S C salk holt Carth the court have a discretionary  power of grant or refuse prohibition S C salk holt d content raym Semb content  burr the court will not on grant a prohibition to a suit for a master wage  compel the owner to give bail unless by consent and where there be no  equitable circumstance in the owner favour the defendant be executrix to the  master of a ship libel in the admiralty court for the wage owe to the testator  by the owner upon which the plaintiff to have a prohibition suggest the  statute of r c that the admiralty court shall not have conusance of contract  make upon the land and show this contract to have be make upon the land c and  this case be several time move by sir Bartholomew shower and Mr Acherly for  the prohibition as well in Michaelmas Hilary and easter term last pass as in  the present term and it be oppose by Mr Northey and Mr hall and the counsel  for the prohibition argue that prohibition be grantable de jure and be not  discretionary in the court raym that the case in winch be the first case where  a prohibition be deny in case of a suit by mariner for their wage in Lord  Raymond the admiralty court and the denial be ground upon compassionate reason  because they be poor man and because there they may join in action but here  they must sever but the say case be contrary to the reason and ground of the  law for where the contract be make upon the land though the service be do upon  the sea it be out of the jurisdiction of the admiralty and so vice line if the  service be do upon the land and the contract upon the sea   stand b hob a  consultation a be always deny in case of a suit by mariner if there be a  charter party and the seal of a write can make any difference in reason raym a  prohibition grant where the master libel alone Mr Northey and Mr hall e contra  for the defendant say that the case of mariner be now settle and ought not to  be stir but that the great reason why they be permit to sue there be the ship  be the debtor and by the law of the admiralty they may attach her whichthey  can do by the commonlaw and in the admiralty court they may all join in a suit  whereas by the commonlaw they must bring several action that the case of the  master be not different for the ship be security to he and he be but a mariner  and his wage be wage at sea but however where the master die in the voyage as  he do in this case there can be no reason to exclude his executor from sue in  the admiralty because he have no opportunity of bring his wage to account with  the owner and in vent Allison v marsh the purser though a officer of a vide  salk pl Str burr lev Lord Raymond er p the ship be allow to sue for his wage  in the admiralty and in keb pl king v pike a prohibition be deny where the  master and mariner join in a suit in the admiralty for their wage but holt say  that a prohibition ought to have be grant quoad in the say case and he cite a  case hill car c b between cooker and old where Atkins and Ellis justice be of  opinion that a prohibition ought to be grant to the suit in the admiralty  court by the master of a ship for his wage but north chief justice and Windham  justice hold the contrary opinion but holt chief justice say that it be a  indulgence that the court at Westminster permit mariner to sue for their wage  in the admiralty court because they may all join in suit and it be ground upon  the principle quod common error compose law but they will not extend it to the  master of the ship especial if he be master at the beginning of the voyage  here in England and the contract be make with he here possible b if the master  of a ship die in the voyage and another man take upon he the charge of the  ship upon the sea such case may be different as in the case of Grossuick v  Louthsey where it be hold in this court late that if a ship be hypothecate and  money borrow upon her at Amsterdam upon the voyage he who lend the money Lord  Raymond a may sue in the admiralty for it and this court grant a consultation  in the say case but in another case where the money be borrow upon the ship  before the voyage the king bench grant a prohibition and the party acquiesce  under it there be many precedent in the court of admiralty of suit by the  mariner for their wage but none for the master of the ship and the case differ  for the mariner contract upon the credit of the ship and the master upon the  credit of the owner of the ship of who general he be one the opinion of Lord  Hobart that where there be matter of property to be try a prohibition shall be  grant be a little too hard gold justice agree with holt and say he be of  opinion that prohibition be grantable of right though it have be controvert in  his time to which holt chief justice say that hale chief justice and Wyndham  justice hold prohibition to be discretionary in all case but Kelynge chief  justice be of the contrary opinion and he say he do not esteem they to be  matter of right then Mr Northey move b that the court will compel the  plaintiff to put in bail to the action to be bring for the wage at commonlaw  or otherwise deny the prohibition which he say have be do often holt chief  justice confess that the court have sometime interpose and procure bail to be  give but it be by consent and in case of the proprietor himself but in regard  that in this case the plaintiff be a purchaser without notice there be no  reason and a prohibition be grant b vide Str Barnard B R a vide ante and the  case there cite b note the ground of move for bail accord to the report in  Carth be because the owner be beyond sea