Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/690

 678 FEDERAL REPORTER. �on the ground that the freight shouldfirst be applied to pay- ment of the seamen's wages; also on the ground that Cross- man is not entitled to be paid until all liens on vessel and freight have been first paid; also on the ground that the material men, whose claims cannot be paid out of the vessel, are in equity entitled to be paid out of the freight in preference to the mortgagee; also on the ground that the master is not entitled to extra wages; or, if so, that such extra wages do not constitute a lien, and that the master's lien against the ves- sel is not entitled' to priority over that of Crocker Brothers & Co. The mortgagee excepta on the ground that Crocker Brothers & Co. had no lien on the vessel; also on the ground that Crossman is not entitled to be paid out of the freight; also on the ground that the mortgagee is entitled to the whole of the freight ; also on the ground that the master is not entitled to be paid out of the vessel in preference to the mortgagee; also on the ground that the master is not entitled to any extra wages out of the proceeds of the vessel before payment of the mortgagee. No objections are under- stood to be taken to the resuit reached by the commissioner except those raised by these exceptions. �The first question to be considered in respect to the claim of Crocker Brothers & Co. is whether they have a lien on the vessel for the copper supplied to her in April, 1877. To the lien claimed by them several objections are made — First, that the vessel was an English vessel, and that, by the law of England, the master bas no authority to bind the vessel in a foreign port for supplies and materials, otherwise than by a bottomry bond ; secondly, that in this case the owner of the vessel resided in this port, and that in such case there is no lien, though the vessel be under a foreign flag; thirdly, that in this case credit was not given to the vessel ; fourthly, that their lien, if they ever had one, was waived by taking a subsequent mortgage; and, lastly, that it was forfeited by laches. �As to the first objection, formai proof of the English law was not made, as it should have been, since the court does ��� �