The  question  presented  by  the  case,  is,  whether,  after  ship-
wreck, and  abandonment  by  the  crew,  wages  are  due,  provided
the  wreck  is  saved  by  other  persons,  independent  of  any
agency  on  their  part.  On  the  general  principles  of  the  con-
tract of  hire,  wages  may,  without  doubt,  be  claimed.  A
mechanic,  who  is  hired  by  the  day  or  rnonth  to  build  a  house,
does  not  lose  his  wages  because  the  building  is  accidentally
destroyed  before  it  is  completed.  But  the  contract  of  hire  for
marine  service  stands  on  reasons'  peculiar  to  itself.  It  is  a
principle  of  every  maritime  code  that  wages  arc  dependent  on
the  safe  delivery  of  the  thing.  If  ship  and  cargo  are  lost,
wages  are  lost.  It  is  the  policy  of  the  law  to  connect,  by  the
strongest  ties,  the  interest  of  the  crew  with  the  safety  of  prop-
erty exposed  to  peculiar  risks.  In  the  event  of  shipwreck,  so
long  as  they  remain  attached  to  the  ship,  they  keep  alive  their
claim  to  wages ;  and  if  part  is  saved  by  their  labor,  though
the  authorities  are  not  uniform,  on  principle,  it  can  hardly  be
denied  that  either  full  wages  are  due,  or,  at  least,  in  propor-
tion to  what  is  saved,  and  according  to  the  circumstances  of


MAINE,  1823.  35


Lewis  et  al  v.  The  Elizabeth  and  Jane.
the  case,  the  seamen  may  claim  an  additional  compensation,
in  the  nature  of  salvage.
•But  when  they  abandon  the  wreck,  and  leave  it  ["43]
derelict,  a  very  different  case  js  presented.  It  may  aid
in  coming  to  a  correct  decision  of  the  question,  to  consider
the  situation  and  incidents  of  property  thus  abandoned.
