THE SHORT CUT. 631 �expresses it, was "superintendent of. the construction of the boat." It is clear that he was not a "clerk" within the mean- ing of the Pennsylvania act of April 20, 1858, relating to boats navigating the rivers AUegheny, Monongahela, and Ohio. 1 Purd. 97. Indeed, I do not understand that it is contended that he had a lien for the $288 by virtue of that statute. He claims that he had a maritime lien against the boat. But the Short Cut was a domestio vessel, and the exceptant's services were rendered at home. If, then, his services as superintendent were of a maritime nature, (whioh I do not think,) he had no lien therefor. The Lottawanna, 21 Wall. 558. �It is well settled that a master of a vessel has no lien against her for his wages. Steam-boat Orleans v. Phcebvs, 11 Pet, 175; 1 Conck. Adm. 115. The exceptant, therefore, to sustain a lien for his wages as master of the Short Cut, must rely wholly upon the Pennsylvania act above cited. But the third section of that act prescribes that such lien claimant shall commence his suit within 60 days after his wages shall have become due and owing ; and the f ourth section provides that any neglect or failure so to commence suit shall dis- charge the boat from the lien. Now the exceptant quit the Short Cut October 6, 1880; and his wages, it would seem, were then due and owing. He did not, however, commence his suit within 60 days, nor until December 14-, 1880, when he filed his intervening libel in this case. But I am of opin- ion that his lien was then gone, notwithstanding the original libel of D. K. Calhoun in this case was filed November 15, 1880. I do not see upon what principle the exceptant can avail himself of the original libel to avoid the consequence of his delay in suing. He was not a party to the original libel, and it was not filed or prosecuted for his benefit. At any time before his intervention the proceedings might have been discontinued without his consent. As the lien was wholly statutory, it must be^governed, as respects its duration, by the limitation imposed by the statute. �But if the objection just discussed could be overcome, there is an equitable grouud for disallowing the exceptant's claim ��� �
