barber and Philpot vers wharton SC but different report Barnard b r a  prohibition shall not be grant after sentence to a suit in the admiralty upon  a contract because the contract do not appear to have be make within the  jurisdiction of the admiralty if it state to have be make infra to flow  refluxum maris infra jurisdiction admiralitatis a rule be make last term to  show cause why prohibition shall not be grant to the court of admiralty to  stay a suit by the defendant as master of the ship victory for his wage upon a  suggestion that the contract be make upon land c Lord Raymond er p accord to  the case of clay v Snellgrave Trin will b r see before short report in salk  where it be hold a master of a ship can not sue in the admiralty for his wage  where the Lord Raymond contract be make upon land though mariner be permit so  to do by indulgence rather than of strict right and Mr reeve for the defendant  show for cause why the rule for the prohibition shall not be make absolute  that the application to this court be too late for it be after sentence and  then it be insist upon no d send for t r dougl arg ante vide Com prohibition d  d Edward vol p a prohibition shall go unless it appear upon the face of the  libel that the admiralty have no jurisdiction which it do not in this case  upon which the cause be put off this term and now the that of October Mr  fazakerley for the prohibition insist that though it be after sentence yet if  it do not appear upon the face of the libel that the admiralty have a  jurisdiction a prohibition ought to go it can be within their jurisdiction  unless the contract be lie to be super deeply mare which be not do in this  case for it be only lie to be infra to flow et refluxum maris infra  jurisdiction curiae admiralitatis in hob it be hold that it be not enough to  give the admiralty jurisdiction that a fact be do infra jurisdiction maritime  be therefore the lie the contract to be make infra jurisdiction admiralitatis  be not sufficient then lie it to be infra to flow et refluxum maris be not  enough because at lowwater that be within the jurisdiction of the commonlaw  and it can be make good by intendment for in vent the take not be express lie  to be super deeply mare though the book say there be much to imply it yet the  court hold it not sufficient for the allege it be absolute necessary say non  allocatur for the court be of opinion that the contract be lie to be make  infra to flow et refluxum maris it may be upon the high sea and be so if the  water be at highwater mark as it may be on land if the water be at lowwater  mark for in that case there be division command between the commonlaw and  admiralty jurisdiction accord as the water be high or low then when it be say  to be infra jurisdiction admiralitatis it be sufficient and amount to the same  as if it have be say to be super deeply mare but if it have appear upon the  libel that the contract be make upon the land the add infra jurisdiction  admiralitatis or infra jurisdiction maritime can not have be enough to entitle  the admiralty to a jurisdiction and therefore the rule for the prohibition be  discharge see roll Abr pl where it be hold to be sufficient to allege that the  contract be make infra jurisdiction admiralitatis without say it be make super  deeply mare for if it be not make on the high sea it ought to be suggest on  the other side to have a prohibition