Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/848

S3e fEOEBAL BBFOBXEB. �' eepobt: �It is proper,in the first place, to state that libels were filed against the barkentine Graf Klot Trautvetter in this honorable court on th^ sixth, eighth, and sixteenth days of November last, and that the claims of said libellants were adjudicated by it, and said vessel sold by its decree of November 20, 1880, to satisfy the same. �The claims of the intervening libellants are reported upon in the order in which they are set forth in their petitions. �1. The claim of H. W. Prundt, master of the barkentine Graf Klot Trautvetter. This claim ie 'as follows : �21 months' and 15 days' wages, as master, f rom 17th February, 1879, to December 2, 1880, at 120 marks per month, - - - - marks 2,580 �5 par cent, commission on £1,498 freight, - 1,617 �Passage money to Antwerp, - - - 300 ���Marks, reduced to U. S. currency, - - marks 4,397 = $1,054 71 �Expenses on shore in Charleston while bark was repairing, - - 150 00 �Amount advanced for vessel, - - • - - - 48 00 ���$1,252 71 This claim of the master is based upon the assumption that the Graf Klot Trautvetter, being a German vessel, the said claim must be decided by German maritime law, and that according to that law the master of a German vessel bas a prior lien on the vessel, equally with the seamen, for his wages. The maritime law of the United States, as administered in its courts of admiralty, on the other hand, while it regards the claims of seamen for wages as a saored lien, and gives them priority over all other claims on the vessel, does not extend this privilege to the claims of a master of a vessel for wages. It gives the maater of a vessel no lien on the vessel for his wages, or for advances and disbursements made by him abroad. The decisions in support of this position are to be found quoted at length in Desty, Ship. & Adm. 117, 118. �As this honorable court, as stated in the beginning of this report, bas decreed that the claims of the original libellants in this case were liens upon the vessel, the issue is raised between the aforesaid claims and that of the master of the aforesaid vessel, and this issue involves the question whether the German maritime law or the maritime law of the United States should govern in the decision of the conflieting claims of the respective libellants. �I hold that the maritime law of the United States must govern. ��� �