eSO FEDERAL REPORTER. �no libel was filed against her on thia claim till her arrivai here in July, 1880. There is evidence that on one occasion when she was about to sail the libellants threatened to arrest her, but were dissuaded by ihe owner. Permitting the ves- sel thus repeatedly to leave the port is a circumstance strongly tending to show an intention to rely on other secu- rity, The taking of a mortgage known at the time to be a second mortgage and subordinate to that held by the first mortgagee, v?hich was giyen in 1875, especially under the circumstanees of laches above narrated, showed a purpose not to rely on the lien, if^ indeed, the mortgage did not neces- sarily extingush it. See The Ann C.Pratt, 1 Curt. 361. See, also, Fish V. Howland, 1 Paige, 20; Mardy v. Slason, 21 Vt. 271. �The laches here have been extraordinary, and such as to disentitle this party to any favor in a court of admiralty. As against the owner, who has admitted his claim, he might be paid out of the proceeds ; but as against subsequent lienors, who have not been guilty of laches, and who stand to him in at least as favorable a relation as subsequent bona fide pur- chasers, the lien is clearly gone. The ruling of the eommis- sioner on this point, postponing the claim of Crocker Broth- ers & Co. to those of the other material men, was entirely correct. The Artisan, 8 Ben. 538, and cases cited. It is no answer to say that these claimants did not know of the re- peated returns of the vessel. I am not satisfied upon the proofs that their agent here had not information of it, but it was their own negligence if they did not know of it. They had ample means of ascertaining the fact, and their failure to colleot their debt before she left the first time made it incumbent on them to use increased diligence thereafter, if they would protect their lien against the newly-accruing claims of parlies trusting her in ignorance of their claim. As to the first mortgagee, undoubtedly he does not stand in the same favorable position in this respect as the subsequent lienors, but he has a right to insist that these parties waived their lien and took other security, a second mortgage, in lieu ��� �
