5S0 , FBDBRAIi EEPOBTEK. �created by statute or by agreement, and theieby aunesed or made part of a maritime contract. �It is puggested that it is discretionary with the court to en- tertain jurisdiction of a claim of foreign seamen against a foreign vessel. This is so. But the question here is not whether the court will take jurisdiction over this vessel. It bas already done so, and seized and sold ber muler its pro- cess. It cannot refuse now to distribute the proceeds ac- cording to the rights of the respective parties who appear to claim tbem. While, therefore, the master must be held to bave a lien for bis wages whicb can be enforced against the vessel or its proceeds in this court, it does not follow, as in the case of the seamen, that bis lien will bave priority over that whicb may be establisbed by other claimants. He may by bis contracts with material men, or parties furnishing sup- plies, bave waived bis lien in their favor, or made it subordi- nate to theirs. In the case of The Selah, 4 Sawy. 40, it was held that a foreign master did so by contracting with sucb parties on the credit of the ship in an American port. The claims of these other parties bave not yet been proved, nor until they are adjusted, and the nature of tbem and the cir- cumstances under which they arose sball be understood, can it be determined wbat are their rights in respect to priority of lien relatively to the claim of the master, The master is, therefore, entitled to a decree for bis wages, reserving ail questions of priority of payment and of distribution till ail the claims made bave been adjusted. The question, also, whether the master is entitled to extra pay as a seaman is also re- served. If the prior liens are sustained it is immaterial. �Decree accordingly. ����
