Is a claim of inferior rank to be paid prior to that of a superior rank to a plaintiff prior to the filing of a libel claim?

The conclusion to which we have arrived after giving the matter careful consideration is that we are not justified upon the authorities or upon principle in holding that a claim of inferior rank is to be paid prior to a claim of a superior rank solely on the ground that the latter claim accrued within 40 days preceding the filing of the libel and the former did not. The holder of a claim of superior rank undoubtedly may lose his right to priority of payment over a claim of inferior rank by his laches. But if the holder of the inferior claim seeks priority, because of the laches of the holder of the superior claim, he should assert it in his pleading. The general rule is that laches must be pleaded. See 16 Cyc. 176. It is undoubtedly true that it is not always necessary to plead it. If it is plainly apparent on the complainant's own showing that he has slept too long on his rights, there is no reason for insisting that laches shall be specially pleaded. See Lansdale v. Smith, 106 U.S. 391, 1 Sup.Ct. 350, 27 L.Ed. 219 (1882). But we cannot say that a delay of a few months in asserting a seaman's claim for wages is such apparent or gross laches that it makes inapplicable the general rule requiring laches to be pleaded. In The City of Tawas, supra, the contention was that claims in the third class which accrued in 1876 should be preferred over claims in the second class which accrued in 1875. Staleness of the prior claim, not having been pleaded, was not, as we have seen, allowed.