(v) Sharpley v. Hurrel, Cro. Jac. 208; The Cognac, 2 Hagg. Adm. 387; The Atlas, 2 Hagg. Adm. 57; White v. Ship Daedalus, 1 Stuart, L. Can. 130.

(w) The Atlas, 2 Hagg. Adm. 48; The Emancipation, 1 W. Rob. 124; Stainbank v. Fenning, 11 C. P. 51, 6 Eng. L. & Eq. 412; The Nelson, 1 Hagg. Adm. 169; Simonds v. Hodgson, 8 B. £ Ad. 50; Jennings v. Ins. Co. of Penn. 4 Binney, 244;

Greeley v. Waterhonse, 19 Maine, 9; Ireland v. The Ship Medora, 2 Woodb. & M. 92; The Brig Draco, 2 Sumner, 157; Bray v. Bates, 9 Met. 237.

(x) The Jane, 1 Dods. 466; The Emancipation, 1 W. Rob. 129; The Lord Cochrane, 2 W. Rob. 820; The Hunter, Ware, 249; The Sch. Zephyr, Mason, 341; The Brig Atlantic, 1 Newb. Adm. 514.

(y) See cases supra, p. *281, n. (s).

A bottomry bond made in the usual form, may become payable on other contingencies than the arrival of the ship; as where the voyage is broken up and terminated, or the ship lost in any way, by the voluntary and unnecessary act of owner or master. (f)

(z) The Mary, 1 Paine, C. C. 671; The Duke of Bedford, 2 Hagg. Adm. 304; The Orelia, 3 Hagg. Adm. 83; The Aline, 1 W.Bob. Ill; The Draco, 2 Sumner, 157.

(a) The Madonna D'Idra, I Dods. 40; Blaine v. Ship Charles Carter, 4 Cranch, 328; The Virgin, 8 Pet. 538; The Hilarity, 1 Blatchf. & H. Adm. 90; Furniss v. Brig Magoun, Olcott, Adm. 66. As to the question whether wages earned prior to the bond would have priority, see The Mary Ann. 9 Jur. 94; The Louisa Bertha, 1 Eng. L. & Eq. 665.

(b) The Jerusalem, 2 Gallis. 345. See also Ex parte Lewis, id. 483.

(c) The Betsey, 1 Dods. 289; The Exeter, 1 Rob. Adm. 173; The Trident, 1 W. Rob. 29; Leland v. The Medora, 2 Woodb. & M. 113; Furniss v. Brig Ma-goon. Olcott, Adm. 66.

(d) The Alexander, 1 Dods. 278; The Jacob, 4 Rob. Adm. 249; Smith v. Gould, 4 Moore, P. C. 28; Simonds v. Hodgson, 3 B. & Ad. 50; The Sch. Zephyr, 3 Mason, 341; Pope v. Nickerson, 3 Story, 465*

(e) Wainwright v. Crawford, 3 Yeates, 131, 4 Dall. 225. There seems to be no reason why a bond drawn for simple interest merely, and which is payable at all events, should not be valid. See The Emancipation, 1 W. Rob. 130; Stainbank v. Fenning, 11 C. B. 51, 6 Eng. L. & Eq. 412; The William & Emmeline, 1 Blatchf. & H. Adm. 66; Selden v. Hendrickson, 1 Brock. C. C. 396; The Brig Atlantic, 1 Newb. Adm. 514; The Hunter, Ware, 249; The Virgin, 8 Pet. 550; Leland v. The Medora, 2 Woodb. & M. 107; The Mary, 1 Paine, C.C. 671. Where a larger sum is fraudulently inserted in the bond than that advanced, the lender being privy thereto, he can recover nothing. The Ann C. Pratt, 1 Curtis, C. C. 340, affirmed Carrington v. Pratt, 18 How. 63.

(f) As by unnecessary deviation. Harman v. Vanhatton, 2 Vern. 717; Wilmer v. The Smilax, 2 Pet. Adm. 295. A deviation from necessity does not have this effect. The Armadillo, 1 W. Rob. 251. - A sale. The Brig Draco, 2 Sumner, 157. - Intentional loss of the ship. Pope v. Nickerson, 3 Story, 465; ThomAn owner may make a bottomry bond anywhere or for any reason. (g) Only one who is lawfully master of the ship (h) can make this bond abroad, and he can make it only from necessity. (i) 1 This necessity must be sufficient; (j) but it may be a less stringent necessity than that which is requisite to authorize a master to sell his ship; and we should say, that it would be a sufficient necessity if it would have induced the owner to do so if present. (k) The master cannot make this bond, if he have funds of the owner within his reach, or can borrow them on the personal credit of the owner. (l) But he certainly is not bound to take money of the shippers which may be on board, and we think he has no right to do this. (m)

The lender must use reasonable means to be sure that the necessity exists. (n) But the bond would not be avoided by a fraud of the master, (o) unless the lender knew it, or might have known it. (p) son v. Royal Exch. Ass. Co. 1 M. & S. 30; The Dante, 2 W. Rob. 427; The Ele-phanta, 9 Eng. L. & Eq. 553; Thorndike v. Stone, 11 Pick. 183.

(g) The Brig Draco, 2 Sumner, 157; Thorndike v. Stone, 11 Pick. 183; Greeley v. Waterhouse, 19 Maine, 9; The Duke of Bedford, 2 Hagg. Adm. 294. Necessity, therefore, is not a requisite. -Same

(h) The Orelia, 3 Hagg. Adm. 75; The Boston, I Blatchf. & H. Adm. 309; The Kennersley Castle, 3 Hagg. Adm. I; The Alexander, 1 Dods. 278; The Tartar, I Hagg. Adm. 1; The Brig Ann C. Pratt, I Curtis, C. C. 344; Breed v. Ship Venus, Abbott on Shipping, 159, note 1; The Jane, 1 Dods. 461.

(i) The Gratitudine, 3 Rob. Adm. 266; The Nelson, I Hagg. Adm. 169; The Gauntlet, 3 W. Rob. 82.

(j) King v. Perry, 3 Salk. 23; Fontaine v. Col. Ins. Co. 9 Johns. 29. It has been said, that a master in a port of a State of this country other than the home port, may make a bond. Selden v. Hendrickson, 1 Brock. C. C. 396. But this cannot now be considered correct. It makes no difference whether the ship is at a port of the country where she is owned or not; the only question is whether she is so far distant from home that the owners cannot be consulted within a reasonable time. Wallace v. Fielden, 7 Moore, P. C. 398, reversing s. c. nom. The Oriental, 3 W. Rob. 243; The Bonaparte, 3 W. Rob. 298; Wilkinson v. Wilson, 8 Moore, P. C. 459; The Bonaparte, 20 Eng. L. & Eq. 649, 8 Moore, P. C. 483; The Nuova Loanese, 22 Eng. L. & Eq. 623; Agricultural Bank v. The Bark Jane, 19 La. 1.

(k) The Fortitude, 3 Sumner, 246; The Medora, Spragne, 138.

(l) The Ship Packet, 3 Mason, 255; Walden v. Chamberlain, 3 Wash. C. C. 290; The Virgin, 8 Pet. 538; The Medora, Sprague, 138; The Sydney Core, 2 Dods. 7. Whether the master is obliged to use his own money before resorting to a bottomry bond seems doubtful. See The Ship Packet, 3 Mason, 263; Caniza res v. The Santissima Trinidad, Bee, 353; The William & Emmeline, 1 Blatchf. & H. Adm. 72.

(m) The Ship Packet, 3 Mason, 258.

(n) The Aurora, 1 Wheat. 96; Thomas v. Osborn, 19 How. 31; Walden v. Chamberlain, 3 Wash. C. C. 290; Soares v. Rahn, 3 Moore, P. C. 1; The Royal Stuart, 38 Eng. L. & Eq. 602; Duncan v. Benson, I Exch. 555.

(o) Atlantic Ins. Co. v. Conard, 4 Wash. C. C. 662, 1 Pet. 386.

(p) Carrington v. Pratt, 18 How. 63.

1 A master cannot bottomry a ship without communication with his owner, if communication be practicable, and, a fortiori, he cannot hypothecate the cargo without communicating with its owner, if communication with such owner be practicable; and the communication must state not merely the necessity for expenditure, but also the necessity for hypothecation. Kleimwort v. Casta Marittima, 2 App. Cas. 156.