Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/515

 THE ADOLPH. 603 �age contribution of the vessel, loans on bottomry, claims for cargo sold for the benefit of the vessel; (3) other claims for which the owners are held liable with the vessel and freight; (4) advances or loans which the owners may make for each other. By the same code it is also provided that seamen who are discharged in a port, other than the port of shipment, by the breaking up of the voyage, shall be entitled to extra wages, differing in amount with different parts of the world, but as applied to this case three months' extra wages. �This libel was filed by the master and seamen, Jannary 13, 1881. The libellants discharged November llth and January lOth claim their wages up to the time of their discharge. The master and seamen are all Swedes, and have their homes in Sweden, although two of those discharged in November and January shipped at ports in France. The insurance Company, whose libel against the Adolph was dismissed, and who have appealed from the decree of this court, have ap- peared to defend this suit. They insist that as the master and seamen have a valid claim in personam agakiuBt the owner in their own country, that they should be remitted to that remedy, and not allowed to absorb for wages a large part of the value of the vessel, which is the only security for their loss which the ipisurance company have. They also object that the seamen should at any rate not have their wages earned prior to the collision as against the insurance com- pany, on the ground that the lien for damages is superior to that for wages, and that the orew should have been sooner discharged and are i^ot entitled to the extra wages. �As respects the, time during which the seamen were re- tained by the master, I think be was right in keeping his crew. The obstacle to the sailing of the ship was temporary, and he properly waited for definite instructions from the owners; and as he was not instruoted to discharge them and abandon the adventure here until the receipt of the letter of the owner of December 13th, and bas not been put in funds to pay them off, he has, simply discharged his duty to the owner in doing what he bas done in respect to keeping the crew. I ��� �