THB ADOLFH. 50S �pursue their remedies at home. Bat still the daim of sea- men for their wages is one most highly favored and carefully protected in the admiralty, and ordinarUy the court will not refuse to enforce against the vessel the claims of foreign sea- men, where the voyage is broken up in this country, and where, if their claims against the vessel are not enforoed here, they will be in danger of losing their hold upon her, or be put to great trouble and expense in pursuing their remedies else- where. In the case of the Linda Flor, Swabey, 309, Dr. Lushington declined to award the seamen of a Portuguese ship their wages against the vessel where objection was made by a party who obtained a decree against the vessel for dam- ages by a collision. The present case does not present the same equity on the part of the intervening party. This In- surance Company, instead of having a decree in their favor against the vessel, bas a decree against them ; and although they have appealed, still in this court they must be held to be a party having no lieh and no equity as against the seamen. It is also a French corporation, entitled to sue, indeed, in our courts, but whose interests the court bas not the same rea- sons to protect, upon an application for the marshalling of assets, as in case of a citizen of this country. . This foreign Company is suing here in a foreign court, and there is nothing to show that it may not have as complete a remedy against the owner in the home port of the vessel, if the liability of the owner sball be established on the appeal, for any de- ficiency in the satisfaction of its claim by reason of the fund being reduced by payment of the seamen, as the seamen them- selves would there have against the owner. The case of The Orient, U. S. D. C, S. D. N. Y., November 8, 1879, is cited as sustaining the claim of the Insurance company, both in the matter of the marshalling of assets and upon the alleged superiority of the lien for damages by collision to the sea- men's lien for their wages prior to the time of the collision. The points here raised are there carefully considered, though the circumstances were somewhat different; but the case does not on either point aid the present claim of the Insurance ��� �
